For Official Use Only
                  
-------
                                     EPA's Mission

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and the
environment. This budget request reflects the tough choices needed for our nation's short- and
long-term fiscal health. The President directed EPA and other federal agencies to reduce funding
levels out of an understanding that the same sacrifices are being made by American  families
every day.  While this budget includes significant cuts, it is designed to  ensure that EPA can
effectively  carry out its core mission to protect public health and our environment, including
reductions of air and water pollution, ensuring the safety of chemicals, providing for the strong
enforcement of environmental  standards,  as  well as the cleanup of contaminated sites that
Americans  expect. It also reflects EPA's overarching commitment to science and our focus  on
the concerns of underserved communities and at-risk populations.

Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

The FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification requests $8.973 billion
in discretionary budget authority. This represents a reduction of approximately $1.3 billion from
FY 2010 enacted levels of $10.3 billion, EPA's highest funding level  since its creation.  As it
does every  year, EPA has worked to find efficiencies within our programs while protecting the
most  vulnerable in  our  communities,  maintaining  hard-won  momentum  in   improving
compliance, revitalizing key ecosystems and  following the science that will help the Agency
sustain progress and foster innovation.  For FY 2012, funding is maintained  for EPA's core
priorities, such as enforcement of the environment and public health protections.

While this budget includes significant cuts, such as a combined $947 million reduction to EPA's
Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Funds (SRFs), as with any  smart budget, EPA plans
to make targeted investments to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency in  protecting our health
and environment.  The FY 2012  Budget maintains funding to  update  the Clean Air Act's
standards and our efforts to assist in transitioning America  to a clean  energy economy.   It
continues the critical  work necessary for protecting and restoring America's waters.  This budget
seeks to  sustain progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment
and our bodies through strategic investments and new approaches.  It reflects a commitment to
close loopholes for big polluters, better ensuring that our federal laws are enforced effectively
and leverages new technologies to improve data processes, reducing the burden on states, tribes,
affected industry and the Agency.  It also focuses on community-level engagement to reach a
broader range of citizens.   Finally, it continues  to reflect our  core values  of  science and
transparency in addressing America's complex environmental protection challenges.

Although these  difficult choices  may  unfortunately  slow  the pace  of progress toward
performance measures established  in our  FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan,  the FY 2012 budget

-------
maintains the fundamental mission of the Agency: to protect the health of the American people
and our environment.

Below are the FY 2012 funding points of focus:

Improving Air Quality and Supporting Action on Greenhouse Gas Pollution

EPA will continue to protect American families' health by enforcing the Clean Air Act's updated
air pollution standards that rein in big polluters  by cutting back on mercury, carbon  dioxide,
arsenic and other life-threatening  pollution  in the  air  we  breathe.  EPA will take  measured,
common-sense  steps  to address greenhouse gas (GHG)  pollution and  improve air  quality.
Taking these reasonable steps to update standards now  will allow the Agency to better protect
people's  health,  drive technology  innovation  for a  stronger  economy,  and  protect  the
environment cost-effectively.  In fact,  creating more sustainable materials and  products is an
opportunity for American innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs.

EPA  is requesting  $5.1 million in additional resources for Air  Toxics and $6.2  million in
upgrades to the National  Vehicle and  Fuel Emissions  Laboratory  (NVFEL).   Additional
resources for air toxics will be used to improve EPA's  air toxic monitoring capabilities and to
improve dissemination of information between and  among the various EPA offices, the state,
local and tribal governments, and the public.  Additional resources for the NVFEL will  begin to
address the anticipated more  than four-fold increase  in  the number  of vehicle and engine
certificates  EPA issues and the  much more challenging oversight  requirements for both the
vehicle/engine compliance program and  fuels programs due to the diversity of sophisticated
technologies.

EPA's FY  2012 budget requests $46 million for efforts aimed to reduce GHG pollution  and
address the Climate  and Clean Energy Challenge.  This includes the $25 million described below
for state grants  focused on developing the technical capacity for addressing GHG pollution in
their Clean Air Act permitting activities and an additional $5 million for related EPA efforts.  $6
million in  additional funding  is  included for the  development and  implementation  of new
emission standards that will reduce GHG pollution from passenger cars, light-duty trucks,  and
medium duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will  support EPA's assessment and potential
development, in response  to legal obligations,  of standards for other mobile sources.  Also
included is  $7 million for the assessment and  potential development of New Source Performance
Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and
manageable for business.  Finally,  this amount includes  $2.5 million for priority measurement,
reporting and verification activities  related  to implementing the  Mandatory  GHG  Reporting
Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data.
                                           11

-------
Protecting America's Water

Many of America's waterbodies are imperiled from a variety of stressors, and EPA will work to
confront the challenges from multiple angles - local and national, traditional and innovative. In
FY 2012, EPA will concentrate on a few targeted waterbodies. As part of the Administration's
long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that focuses
on working with States and communities to enhance technical, managerial and financial capacity.
Important to the technical capacity will be enhancing alternatives analysis to  expand "green
infrastructure" options and their multiple benefits.  Future year budgets for the SRFs gradually
adjust, taking into account repayments, through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average,
about 5 percent of water infrastructure spending annually.  When coupled with  increasing
repayments from loans made in past years by states, the annual funding will allow the SRFs to
finance a significant percentage in clean water and drinking water infrastructure.  Federal dollars
provided through the SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and ongoing
management of sustainable  water infrastructure.   Overall, the Administration requests a
combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs. This request brings the four year total  for SRFs to nearly
$17 billion (FY 2009 - FY 2012).

EPA is  increasing resources to address upstream pollution resources in the Mississippi River
Basin.   The Mississippi River Basin  Program  is funded at $6.0 million  and will focus on
nonpoint source  program enhancements to spur water-quality improvement.  This is supported
by $600,000 for  enforcement activities in the Basin. Resources for the Chesapeake Bay Program
are increased by $17.4 million  to $67.4  million  to  support our  work under the President's
Executive  Order on  the  Chesapeake Bay,  for  implementing a strategy to restore Bay water
quality.  While funding has  gone down from 2010 levels, EPA  will also continue to lead the
implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration  Initiative, providing $350 million for programs
and projects  strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the
Great Lakes ecosystem.  Continuing efforts  in these and  other clean water  and  drinking water
projects  reflects a  commitment  to   leverage  Federal  agency  partnerships  to  strengthen
disadvantaged communities by reconnecting them with their waters and achieving community-
based goals.
                                           in

-------
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships

The mission of EPA is achieved through strong collaboration with states and tribes and reflects
the Agency's overarching commitment to  address the  legitimate  concerns of underserved
communities  and at-risk populations.  This  budget includes $1.2 billion  for State and Tribal
categorical grants, an  increase of $85 million, to support  States and  Tribes to implement their
environmental programs.   Our partners are working diligently to implement updated standards
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) and need additional support during
this time of constrained state budgets.

The $306 million in State grant funding for air programs is above historical levels and necessary
to meet the additional  responsibilities associated with achieving air quality standards that better
protect people's  health and the environment. Increases for air grants include $25 million for
development  and  deployment of  technical  capacity  needed  to address GHG pollution  in
permitting  under  the CAA  and  $54 million  to  support  increased  state  workload  for
implementation of updated National Ambient  Air Quality Standards.

An additional $21 million is requested  for  Water Pollution Control (Sec 106) grants.  This
increase addresses issues that continue to degrade water  quality issues nationwide by supporting
states as they focus on the continued development of water quality standards, identification of
impaired waters, development of Total Maximum Daily Loads  for use in permit actions, and
targeted enforcement to address the most serious instances of noncompliance.  An additional $4
million  is requested  for Public  Water  Systems  Supervision (PWSS) grants  to  support
management  of  state  and  drinking water  system data.  This will  improve  transparency and
efficiency as it will replace the outdated Safe Drinking Water Information System/State Version
(SDWIS/State) and improve reporting and dissemination of drinking water system compliance
information.  $20 million is requested for the Tribal Multimedia Implementation grant program
in order to help tribes move beyond building the capacity  to plan, develop,  and establish
environmental protection programs under the  GAP program to implementation. This is intended
to advance negotiated  environmental plans and activities on a cooperative basis between tribes
and EPA, ensuring that tribal environmental priorities are adequately addressed.

Strengthening Enforcement and Compliance

The FY 2012 President's Budget includes  approximately $621  million for EPA's enforcement
and compliance assurance  program. EPA enforcement  programs face complex challenges that
demand both traditional and innovative strategies to improve our effectiveness and efficiency in
protecting  the health  of  American families.  Through  the Regaining  Ground:  Increasing
Compliance in Critical Areas initiative,  EPA will  begin to  harness the  tools of  modern
technology to address  some of these challenges and make EPA's Enforcement and  Compliance
Assurance program more efficient and effective.  EPA  will start using 21st century electronic

                                           iv

-------
reporting (e-reporting), monitoring tools, and market-based approaches to ensure a level playing
field for American businesses.

Maximizing the use of advanced data and monitoring tools will allow EPA to focus its limited
inspection and enforcement resources in  those areas where  they  are most effective or most
necessary.  These include complex industrial operations that require physical inspection,  cases
involving potentially significant harm to human health  or the environment, potential criminal
violations or repeat violators.  In FY 2012, EPA will begin to review  existing  compliance
reporting requirements to identify opportunities to use objective self-monitoring, self or third
party certification,  public accountability, advanced monitoring  techniques,   and electronic
reporting requirements.

EPA has focused on identifying where the most significant vulnerabilities exist, in terms of scale
and potential risk and proposes to increase oversight/monitoring of regulated high risk facilities
in order to better implement prevention approaches.  In  FY 2012,  as  part of the Regaining
Ground initiative, EPA will invest an additional $5 million to increase the number of inspections
at high risk facilities like  oil facilities  regulated under  the  Spill  Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) and the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.  Funding will also
be used to develop and implement a third party audit program  for non-high risk SPCC facilities,
in order to improve the efficiency of targeting resources and inspectors at these facilities in the
future.

Enhancing Chemical Safety

America's citizens deserve to know the products they use are  safe.   To  sustain  progress in
assuring the  safety of chemicals in our products,  our environment and  our  bodies, EPA is
improving how it assesses the safety of chemicals in the environment and the marketplace. FY
2012 represents a crucial stage in EPA's approach for enhancing chemical safety. The program
has attained its 'zero  tolerance'  goal in preventing introduction  of unsafe new chemicals into
commerce but many 'pre-TSCA' chemicals already in commerce remain un-assessed.

In FY 2012,  EPA will continue with the transformation of its approach for ensuring chemical
safety.  EPA's approach will be  centered  on  increasing the  pace  in assessing  chemicals,
strengthening information management, taking  immediate  and lasting actions to eliminate or
reduce identified chemical risks, and developing proven safer alternatives.

This  budget  request  includes  a  $16  million  investment   to  more  fully  implement the
Administrator's Enhancing Chemical Safety initiative by taking action to reduce chemical risks,
increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments, and provide the public with greater access to
toxic chemical information.  Funding will support  implementation of chemical  risk reduction

-------
actions that consider the impact of chemicals on children's health and on disadvantaged, low
income, and indigenous populations.  The additional funding will help to close knowledge and
risk management gaps for thousands of chemicals already in commerce by updating regulatory
controls and other actions that decrease potential impacts to human health and the environment.
EPA also will continue  promoting use of safer chemicals,  chemical management practices and
technologies to enable the transition away  from existing chemicals that present unreasonable
human health and environmental risks.

Supporting Healthy Communities

The  Environmental Protection  Agency,  along with  other federal  agencies, is committed  to
protect, sustain or restore the health of communities and ecosystems by  bringing together a
variety of programs, tools, approaches and resources directed to the local level.  A diversity of
perspectives  and experiences brings  a  wider  range of  ideas and approaches  and creates
opportunities for innovation.   Results  are  drawn  from both regulatory  mechanisms and
collaborative partnerships with stakeholders.  Partnerships with international,  Federal,  state,
tribal, and  local governments and non-governmental  organizations have long been a common
thread across EPA's programs.

The  FY 2012  budget  includes  a  $19.8  million  multidisciplinary  initiative for Healthy
Communities. It supports states and communities in promoting healthier school environments  by
increasing  technical  support, outreach and  co-leading Federal interagency  coordination and
integration  efforts.  It also provides resources to address air toxics within  at-risk communities
and to  support the important joint DOT/HUD/EPA outreach  and technical  assistance efforts to
encourage and facilitate sustainable development within communities.

EPA supports the America's  Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative to  develop  a community-based
21st century conservation agenda that can also spur job creation in the tourism and recreation
industries.  EPA will join the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Council on Environmental Quality to lead the coordinated  effort to leverage support across the
Federal Government to help community-driven efforts to protect and restore our outdoor legacy.
The area-wide planning  and community support focus of existing EPA programs and initiatives
like Urban Waters and Brownfields programs align well with the goals and  objectives of this
new initiative.

Maintaining a Strong Science Foundation

In FY  2012, EPA is restructuring our scientific research  program to be more  integrated and
cross-disciplinary,  allowing  our  scientific  work to be  more transformational.   EPA  is
strengthening its planning and delivery of science to more deeply examine our environmental
                                           VI

-------
and public health challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals.  By
looking at problems from a systems perspective, this new research approach will create synergy
and produce more timely and comprehensive results beyond those possible from approaches that
are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. In FY 2012, we are requesting
a science and technology budget of $826 million. This amount includes increases to research on
endocrine disrupting chemicals,  green chemistry, e-waste and e-design, green infrastructure,
computational toxicology,  air monitoring, drinking water and Science, Technology, Engineering,
or Mathematics (STEM) Fellowships.

Science is - and must continue to  be - the foundation of all our work at EPA. Good science
leads to shared solutions;  everyone benefits from clean air and clean water.  Rigorous science
leads  to innovative solutions  to complex environmental  challenges.   Most of the  scientific
research increases will  support additional  Science to  Achieve  Results (STAR)  grants and
fellowships to make progress on  these research priorities and leverage the expertise of the
academic research community. This budget also supports the study of computational toxicology
and other priority research efforts with a focus on advancing the design of sustainable solutions
for reducing risks associated with environmentally hazardous substances.  Two million dollars is
also included to conduct a long-term review of EPA's laboratory network.
                                           vn

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

Table of Contents - Resource Summary Tables

APPROPRIATION SUMMARY	3
   Budget Authority	3
   Full-time Equivalents (FTE)	4

-------

-------
                             Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                                        Budget Authority
                                     (Dollars in Thousands)


Science & Technology
Oil Spill Supplemental
Science & Technology

Environmental Program &
Management

Inspector General

Building and Facilities

Inland Oil Spill Programs

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
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
(INCLUDING
RESCISSIONS)
Recovery Act - EPM
Recovery Act - IG
Recovery Act -LUST
Recovery Act - SF
Recovery Act - STAG
Recovery Act Resources
TOTAL, EPA
FY2010
Enacted

$846,049.0
$2,000.0
$848,049.0

$2,993,779.0

$44,791.0

$37,001.0

$18,379.0

$1,269,732.0
$9,975.0
$26,834.0
$1,306,541.0

$113,101.0

$4,978,223.0

$10,339,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,299,864.0





$0.0
$10,299,864.0

































FY 2010
Actuals

$817,677.7
$0.0
$817,677.7

$2,966,637.1

$42,238.8

$39,548.8

$16,904.4

$1,372,230.3
$9,337.9
$28,032.8
$1,409,601.0

$116,882.3

$4,392,447.4

$9,801,937.5
$0.0
$9,801,937.5
$22,237.5
$6,925.6
($4,299.0)
$5,190.3
$18,528.1
$48,582.5
$9,850,520.0

































FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$846,049.0
$0.0
$846,049.0

$2,993,779.0

$44,791.0

$37,001.0

$18,379.0

$1,269,732.0
$9,975.0
$26,834.0
$1,306,541.0

$113,101.0

$4,978,223.0

$10,337,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0





$0.0
$10,297,864.0

































FY 2012
Pres Budget

$825,596.0
$0.0
$825,596.0

$2,876,634.0

$45,997.0

$41,969.0

$23,662.0

$1,203,206.0
$10,009.0
$23,016.0
$1,236,231.0

$112,481.0

$3,860,430.0

$9,023,000.0
($50,000.0)
$8,973,000.0





$0.0
$8,973,000.0
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.  $40M rescission implemented in 2010 against PY funds. See appendix for more
detailed Recovery Act Information.
                                              3

-------
                             Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                             APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                                   Full-time Equivalents (FTE)


Science & Technology
Oil Spill Supplemental
Science & Technology

Science and Tech. - Reim

Environmental Program &
Management

Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim

Inspector General

Inland Oil Spill Programs

Inland Oil Spill Programs - Reim

Superfund Program
IG Transfer
S&T Transfer
Hazardous Substance Superfund

Superfund Reimbursables

Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks

WCF-REIMB

Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund

Pesticide Registration Fund

Recovery Act Reimbursable: M&O

Recovery Act Reimbursable: S&T

Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF

Well Permit BLM

SUB-TOTAL, FTE CEILING

FY2010
Enacted

2,442.5

2,442.5

3.0

10,925.3

0.0

296.0

102.2

0.0

3,017.5
65.8
110.0
3,193.3

75.5

75.3

136.1

167.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

17,417.0












































FY 2010
Actuals

2,441.7
0.0
2,441.7

0.3

10,793.6

23.0

283.3

89.8

80.2

2,919.2
52.2
98.8
3,070.2

94.1

67.0

115.7

142.1

69.0

0.6

0.9

3.8

2.6

17,277.9












































FY 2011
Annualized
CR

2,442.5
0.0
2,442.5

3.0

10,925.3

0.0

296.0

102.2

0.0

3,017.5
65.8
110.0
3,193.3

75.5

75.3

136.1

167.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

17,417.0












































FY 2012
Pres Budget

2,471.2
0.0
2,471.2

1.5

10,851.9

0.0

300.0

119.0

0.0

2,899.7
65.8
106.4
3,071.9

50.7

64.3

126.6

145.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

17,202.1

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan. $40M rescission implemented in 2010 against PY funds. See appendix for more
detailed Recovery Act Information.
                                              4

-------


Pesticide Registration Fund1

TOTAL, EPA
FY2010
Enacted

69.0

17,486.0





FY 2010
Actuals

0.0

17,277.9





FY 2011
Annualized
CR

69.0

17,486.0





FY 2012
Pres Budget

69.0

17,271.1
 Presentation of reimbursable FTE for this account should not be interpreted as counting against the Agency ceiling, but rather a
projection of reimbursable FTE to accurately and transparently account for the size of this program and the Agency
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan. $40M rescission implemented in 2010 against PY funds. See appendix for more
detailed Recovery Act Information.
                                                         5

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Goal and Objective Overview

GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY	8
   Budget Authority	8
   Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE)	10
Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality	12
Protecting America's Waters	22
Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development	34
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution	47
Enforcing Environmental Laws	55

-------

-------
                              Environmental Protection Agency
             FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                          GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                                        Budget Authority
                                      (Dollars in Thousands)

Taking Action on Climate Change
and Improving Air Quality
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund

Protecting America's Waters
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Inspector General

Cleaning Up Our Communities and
Advancing Sustainable
Development
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
FY2010
Enacted
$1,130,427.9
$486,173.5
$286,884.9
$8,611.6
$339,655.5
$5,234.2
$3,868.2

$5,645,339.6
$1,202,988.5
$156,653.3
$5,924.4
$4,249,791.5
$29,981.8

$2,075,066.9
$358,305.3
$206,733.3
$7,695.3
$327,692.9
$112,155.8






















FY 2010
Actuals
$1,161,100.7
$487,910.3
$273,033.9
$9,322.0
$382,346.0
$4,447.5
$4,041.0

$4,989,963.6
$1,191,126.7
$151,713.0
$6,286.7
$3,603,724.5
$37,112.7

$2,232,328.3
$374,308.1
$203,209.3
$7,964.8
$363,451.3
$111,742.3






















FY2011
Annualized
CR
$1,130,427.9
$486,173.5
$286,884.9
$8,611.6
$339,655.5
$5,234.2
$3,868.2

$5,645,339.6
$1,202,988.5
$156,653.3
$5,924.4
$4,249,791.5
$29,981.8

$2,073,066.9
$358,305.3
$204,733.3
$7,695.3
$327,692.9
$112,155.8






















FY2012
Pres Budget
$1,130,919.3
$500,817.9
$280,583.9
$10,179.9
$328,943.9
$6,290.5
$4,103.3

$4,342,645.5
$1,034,492.8
$150,049.4
$6,849.6
$3,123,517.3
$27,736.3

$2,017,061.5
$358,810.2
$188,420.7
$8,255.4
$346,330.2
$111,586.0
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan. $40M rescission implemented in 2010 against PY funds. See appendix for more detailed
Recovery Act Information.

-------

Inland Oil Spill Programs
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund

Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals
and Preventing Pollution
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund

Enforcing Environmental Laws
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund

Sub-Total
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Total

FY2010
Enacted
$16,022.6
$4,811.3
$1,041,650.5

$681,126.8
$446,916.7
$179,545.2
$10,007.5
$34,708.6
$2,659.6
$7,289.2

$807,902.7
$499,394.9
$18,232.2
$4,762.3
$26,374.6
$945.2
$2,356.4
$2,104.0
$253,733.0

$10,339,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,299,864.0




























FY 2010
Actuals
$14,509.1
$4,491.9
$1,152,651.5

$671,424.4
$446,415.0
$171,878.5
$11,095.6
$34,675.7
$1,812.8
$5,546.8

$795,703.1
$489,114.6
$17,843.0
$4,879.7
$26,778.0
$841.0
$2,395.3
$1,299.5
$252,552.0

$9,850,520.0
$0.0
$9,850,520.0




























FY2011
Annualized
CR
$16,022.6
$4,811.3
$1,041,650.5

$681,126.8
$446,916.7
$179,545.2
$10,007.5
$34,708.6
$2,659.6
$7,289.2

$807,902.7
$499,394.9
$18,232.2
$4,762.3
$26,374.6
$945.2
$2,356.4
$2,104.0
$253,733.0

$10,337,864.0
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0




























FY2012
Pres Budget
$20,540.6
$5,906.8
$977,211.7

$702,542.3
$457,466.5
$188,244.1
$11,446.4
$34,755.5
$3,320.2
$7,309.5

$829,831.4
$525,046.6
$18,297.9
$5,237.7
$26,883.0
$895.0
$3,121.4
$2,743.2
$247,606.6

$9,023,000.0
($50,000.0)
$8,973,000.0

 Recovery Act funds are included in the goal totals above.  See Appendix for more details on Recovery Act funds.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan. $40M rescission implemented in 2010 against PY funds. See appendix for more detailed
Recovery Act Information.

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                        GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
                            Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE)

Taking Action on Climate Change
and Improving Air Quality
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Science and Tech. - Reim
WCF-REIMB
Recovery Act Reimbursable:
M&O

Protecting America's Waters
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Inspector General
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
WCF-REIMB
UIC Injection Well Permit BLM

Cleaning Up Our Communities and
Advancing Sustainable Development
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
FY2010
Enacted
2,735.4
1,879.5
769.0
34.6
18.4
0.0
3.0
30.9
0.0

3,501.9
2,793.0
484.3
198.1
0.0
26.4
0.0

4,483.9
1,707.0
555.0
69.9
84.9
31.8
1,932.6


























FY2010
Actuals
2,714.2
1,874.2
767.5
25.6
18.5
1.5
0.3
26.5
0.0

3,471.3
2,761.6
466.4
213.9
5.0
21.7
2.6

4,517.2
1,725.4
545.5
62.6
74.7
25.9
1,885.7


























FY2011
Annualized
CR
2,735.4
1,879.5
769.0
34.6
18.4
0.0
3.0
30.9
0.0

3,501.9
2,793.0
484.3
198.1
0.0
26.4
0.0

4,483.9
1,707.0
555.0
69.9
84.9
31.8
1,932.6


























FY 2012
Pres Budget
2,809.2
1,937.9
780.0
41.0
18.7
0.0
1.5
30.0
0.0

3,433.9
2,734.9
494.0
180.9
0.0
24.1
0.0

4,338.3
1,661.3
533.5
59.8
100.9
38.5
1,869.6
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          10

-------

Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inland Oil Spill Programs - Reim
Superfund Reimbursables
WCF-REIMB
Recovery Act Reimbursable:
M&O
Recovery Act Reimbursable: S&T
Recovery Act Reimbursable: SF

Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and
Preventing Pollution
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Inspector General
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Pesticide Registration Fund
WCF-REIMB

Enforcing Environmental Laws
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Superfund Reimbursables
WCF-REIMB

Total
FY2010
Enacted
0.0
0.0
75.5
27.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

2,692.5
1,908.2
543.0
17.6
167.8
21.9
0.0
0.0
34.1

4,003.2
2,637.6
91.1
5.4
17.3
13.9
1,220.3
0.0
0.0
17.6

17,417.0































FY2010
Actuals
4.1
80.2
85.0
22.8
0.6
0.9
3.8

2,741.0
1,883.5
576.4
10.4
142.1
18.3
10.8
69.0
30.4

3,834.3
2,548.9
85.8
4.4
15.1
7.5
1,147.7
1.5
9.1
14.2

17,277.9































FY2011
Annualized
CR
0.0
0.0
75.5
27.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

2,692.5
1,908.2
543.0
17.6
167.8
21.9
0.0
0.0
34.1

4,003.2
2,637.6
91.1
5.4
17.3
13.9
1,220.3
0.0
0.0
17.6

17,417.0































FY 2012
Pres Budget
0.0
0.0
50.7
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2,706.4
1,912.6
572.6
21.7
145.0
22.3
0.0
0.0
32.3

3,914.3
2,605.1
91.1
4.5
18.1
17.9
1,161.3
0.0
0.0
16.2

17,202.1
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                                               11

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

              Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to address climate change,
and protect and improve air quality.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
    •   Reduce the threats posed by climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
       taking actions that help communities and ecosystems become more resilient to the effects
       of climate change.
    •   Achieve and maintain health-based air pollution standards and reduce risk from toxic air
       pollutants and indoor air contaminants.
    •   Restore the earth's stratospheric  ozone  layer and protect the public from the harmful
       effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
    •   Minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts should
       unwanted releases occur.

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

Taking Action on Climate
Change and Improving Air
Quality
Address Climate Change
Improve Air Quality
Restore the Ozone Layer
Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to
Radiation
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,130,427.9
$196,886.4
$872,147.1
$18,662.6
$42,731.8
2,735.4
FY 2010
Actuals
$1,161,100.7
$192,779.5
$906,658.7
$19,244.7
$42,417.8
2,714.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$1,130,427.9
$196,886.4
$872,147.1
$18,662.6
$42,731.8
2,735.4
FY2012
Pres Budget
$1,130,919.3
$252,854.4
$820,451.3
$18,159.7
$39,453.9
2,809.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$491.4
$55,968.0
($51,695.8)
($502.9)
($3,277.9)
73.8
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           12

-------
                                         Goall

              Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to address climate
change, and protect and improve air quality.

                                      Introduction

EPA has dedicated itself to protecting and improving the quality of the Nation's air to promote
public health and protect the environment.  Air pollution concerns are diverse and significant,
and include:  greenhouse gases (GHGs) and climate change, outdoor and indoor air quality,
radon, stratospheric ozone depletion, and radiation protection.

Since passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, nationwide air quality has improved
significantly.  Despite  this progress, about  127 million Americans (about 40% of the  US
population)  lived in counties with air that did not meet health-based standards for at least one
pollutant in 2009.  Long-term exposure to elevated levels of certain air pollutants has been
associated with  increased risk of cancer,  premature mortality, and  damage to  the  immune,
neurological, reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory  systems.   Short-term  exposure to
elevated levels of certain air  pollutants can exacerbate  asthma and lead to other adverse health
effects; additional impacts associated with increased air pollution levels include missed work and
school days.

Because people  spend much of their lives indoors,  the  quality of indoor air also is a major
concern.  Twenty percent of the population spends the day indoors  in elementary and secondary
schools, where problems with leaky roofs and with heating, ventilation,  and air conditioning
systems can lead to increased presence of molds  and other environmental allergens which can
trigger a host of health  problems, including asthma and allergies.  Exposure to indoor radon is
related to an estimated 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year.

The issues of highest importance facing the air  program over the next few years will be ozone
and particulate air pollution, interstate transport of air pollutants, emissions from transportation
sources, toxic air pollutants,  indoor  air pollutants (including radon), and  GHGs.   EPA uses a
variety of approaches to reduce pollutants in indoor and outdoor air.  The Agency works with
other federal agencies;  state, Tribal, and  local governments;  and international  partners and
stakeholders; and employs  strategies that include:   traditional regulatory tools; innovative,
market-based techniques; public- and private-sector partnerships; community-based approaches;
voluntary programs that promote environmental  stewardship; and programs that encourage cost-
effective technologies and practices.

EPA's air toxic  control programs are critical to EPA's continued progress in reducing public
health risks  and improving the quality of the environment.  EPA has been unable to meet many
of the statutory deadlines  for  air toxics  standards established  in the Clean Air Act due to
numerous unfavorable  court decisions,  inherent  management challenges, complexity of risk
modeling frameworks, and budget constraints over the past decade as resources have shifted to

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           13

-------
managing criteria pollutants that pose  higher  overall health risks.  Lawsuits  over  missed
deadlines have in many cases set the Agency's  agenda, rather than  health and environmental
outcomes. Working with litigants and informed by analysis of air quality health risk data, EPA
is working to prioritize key air toxics regulations for completion in 2011 and 2012 that can be
completed expeditiously and that will address significant risks to the public health.

The supply and diversity of biofuels in America is growing every year, and a new generation of
automobile technologies, including several  new plug-in hybrids and  all-electric  vehicles, is
literally "hitting the road" this year.  Because EPA  is responsible for establishing the test
procedures needed  to estimate  the fuel economy  of new  vehicles,  and  for verifying car
manufacturers' data on  fuel economy,  the Agency  is investing  in  additional  testing and
certification capacity to ensure that new vehicles, engines, and fuels are in compliance with new
vehicle  and  fuel standards.   In particular,  compared  to  conventional vehicles,  advanced
technology vehicles like Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles
(EV) require additional testing.   Current electric vehicle dynamometer testing can occupy test
cells for several shifts, since the  current  test procedures require the vehicles run through their
entire battery charge.  Improved, shortened EV test procedures are under development by EPA.
PHEV  testing may actually consume   more time  than  EV  testing,  due  primarily  to the
requirement that PHEVs be tested in both  electric/electric assist mode and in hybrid mode.
Without testing PHEVs  in both modes, EPA cannot accurately determine PHEV fuel economy
and emissions compliance. The new standards for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions in particular
will require EPA to more  frequently verify car manufacturers' data for a  greater variety of
vehicle  engine technologies. To prepare for this workload, the Agency will continue its support
of the  multi-year National Vehicle and  Fuel  Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) modernization
effort.

                            Major FY  2012 Investment Areas

Air Toxics

In FY 2012, EPA will invest $6.1 million  in several activities that support the air toxics program.
$3.1 million will be targeted at improvements in monitoring capabilities on source-specific and
ambient bases. These funds will also improve the  dissemination of information  between and
amongst the various EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the public.   The
remaining $2.9 million of this investment will be used for enhancing tools such as the National
Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA), National  Air Toxic Assessment (NATA),  BenMAP, and Air
Facility System (AFS), which will also improve monitoring capabilities.  EPA anticipates that
this investment will substantially increase the Agency's ability to meet aggressive court ordered
schedules to complete rulemaking activities, such  as standards to address the refining sector
where 25 rules must be acted upon in the fiscal year.  This investment will also assist the Agency
in its work to complete  or develop an additional 150 rules in FY 2013 that  are under legal or
statutory deadlines.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           14

-------
Support for State Air Quality Management

EPA  is  investing an additional  $77 million  in  state assistance grants to support NAAQS
implementation and greenhouse gas permitting.  Specific increases include $25 million to assist
in permitting greenhouse gas emissions sources.  These funds will develop and deploy to states
the technical capacity needed to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in permitting under
the Clean  Air Act.   An additional $52  million  will support increased  state workload for
implementation of updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards.  This investment includes
requested funding of $15  million  for additional state air monitors,  as required  by the revised
NAAQS.   The request also includes an additional $37.0  million to support  state activities,
including revising state implementation plans  (SIPs)  and  developing models  and emissions
inventories needed for multi-state air quality management strategies.

                     Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions

In order to promote fiscal responsibility EPA is also making the tough choices, including:

    •   In the face of significant budget constraints, EPA has made the difficult budget decision
       to not propose new DERA grant funding in FY 2012.  During this time, the program will
       continue to support already on-going projects funded through DERA and stimulus funds,
       adding to  the tremendous  public health  benefits associated with the program that have
       resulted from significant reductions in air pollution, particularly in our cities and around
       our  ports and transportation hubs.

    •   Discontinuing the Climate Leaders program  as large businesses find assistance with their
       energy-saving and GHG reducing actions through private entities.

    •   Reducing  funding  for the Indoor Air program's partnership and outreach to external
       stakeholders and for the Radiation and Indoor Environments laboratories.

                                     Priority Goals

EPA has established two Priority Goals to improve the  country's ability to measure and control
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The Priority Goals are:

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions:  Mandatory Reporting Rule
    •   By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publically available 100 percent of facility-level GHG
       emissions  data submitted to EPA in accordance with the GHG Reporting Rule, compliant
       with policies protecting Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions:  Light Duty Vehicles
    •   In 2011, EPA, working with DOT, will  begin implementation of regulations designed to
       reduce the GHG emissions from light duty  vehicles  sold in the US  starting with model
       year 2012.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           15

-------
In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals
as necessary and appropriate.

                                   FY 2012 Activities

Reducing GHG Emissions and Developing Adaptation Strategies to Address Climate Change

Climate change poses risks to public health, the environment, cultural resources, the economy,
and quality of life. Many effects of climate change are already evident and some will persist into
the future regardless of future levels of GHG emissions.  Climate change impacts include higher
temperatures and may lead to more stagnant air masses which are expected to  make it more
challenging to achieve air quality standards for smog in many regions of the country, adversely
affecting public health if areas cannot attain or maintain clean air. Another example is that a rise
in sea level or increased precipitation intensity may increase flooding, which could affect water
quality if large volumes of water transport contaminants and overload storm and wastewater
systems.   In order to protect public  health and the environment, EPA and air and water quality
managers at  the  state, tribal, and local  levels must  recognize and consider the challenge a
changing climate poses to their mission.

Responding to the  threat of climate change  is one  of the  Agency's top priorities.    EPA's
strategies to address climate change  support the President's GHG emissions reduction goals.  We
will  work with partners and stakeholders to  provide tools and information related to GHG
emissions and impacts, and will reduce GHG emissions domestically and internationally through
cost-effective, voluntary programs while pursuing additional regulatory actions as needed.

In FY 2012, the Agency will begin some  new areas of activity, expand some existing strategies,
and discontinue others.

   These efforts include:

   •  Implementing  new standards to reduce emissions from cars and light-duty trucks  for
       model years  2012 through 2016, extending that program to model year 2017 and beyond,
       and creating a  similar program to reduce GHGs from medium- and heavy-duty trucks for
       model years  2014-2018.
   •  Establishing permitting requirements for facilities including utilities and refineries that
       emit large amounts of GHGs to encourage design and construction of more efficient and
       advanced processes that will  contribute to a clean energy economy.
   •  Promulgating New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases for the electric
       utility generation and refinery sectors.
   •  Implementing  voluntary programs that reduce  GHGs through the greater use of energy
       efficient technologies and products.
   •  Implementing  a national system for reporting GHG emissions; implementing permitting
       requirements for new and modified facilities that emit substantial  amounts of GHGs.
   •  Working with Congress  on options for cost-effective legislation  to  promote a clean
       energy future and address GHG emissions.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           16

-------
    •   Developing  a comprehensive  report to Congress on black carbon that will provide a
       foundation for evaluating future approaches to black carbon mitigation.
    •   Identifying  and assessing substitute  chemical and ozone-depleting substances  and
       processes for their global warming potential.
    •   Educating the public about climate change and actions people can take to reduce GHG
       emissions.

Improving Air Quality

Clean Air

Addressing outdoor air pollution and the interstate transport of air pollution are top priorities for
the Agency.  Elevated levels of air pollution are linked to thousands of asthma cases and heart
attacks, and almost 2 million lost school or work days.  EPA recently strengthened the national
ambient air quality  standards (NAAQS) for lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide, is in the
process of reviewing the particulate matter and carbon monoxide standards, and is reconsidering
the 2008 ozone  standard.   Over the  next  few years, EPA will work with states and Tribes to
designate areas where the air does not meet these standards, and develop and implement plans to
meet the NAAQS.  In FY 2011, EPA plans to finalize the Transport Rule, which is  expected to
be implemented in FY 2012.  This rule will reduce power plant emissions that drift across the
borders of 31 eastern states and the District of Columbia.  The new transport rule, along with
local and state air pollution controls,  is designed to help areas in the eastern United  States meet
existing health standards for ozone and particulate matter.  As EPA addresses these pollutants,
the Agency also is working to improve the overall air  quality management system and address
the air quality challenges  expected over the next 10 to 20 years.  This includes working with
partners and  stakeholders to develop comprehensive air quality strategies that address multiple
pollutants and consider the interplay between air quality and factors such as land use, energy,
and transportation.

Mobile  sources  (including light-duty and  heavy-duty  vehicles;  on-road vehicles and off-road
engines; as well as  ships, aircraft and trains) contribute a substantial percentage of the nation's
pollution burden. EPA addresses emissions from motor vehicles, engines, and fuels through an
integrated strategy that combines  regulatory approaches that take advantage of technological
advances  and cleaner and higher-quality  fuels  with voluntary  programs that reduce vehicle,
engine,  and equipment activity and emissions. Future regulatory activity includes proposing  Tier
3 vehicle and fuel standards in FY 2012 in response to  the May 2010 Presidential Directive and
new on-board diagnostic requirements for non-road diesel engines.  In the fuels area, EPA is
working with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and others to implement regulations to increase
the amount of renewable fuel blended into gasoline.

Air Toxics

As part of the investment in air toxics, EPA will work with affected communities to address risks
and track progress, with additional emphasis on communities that may be disproportionately
impacted by  toxic air emissions.  The Agency will continue to work with state and local air
pollution control agencies and community groups to assess and address air toxics emissions in

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            17

-------
areas of greatest concern, including where the most vulnerable members of our population live,
work, and go to school. EPA is implementing a sector-based strategy to develop rules that will
achieve the greatest reductions in risks from air toxics, provide regulatory certainty for sources,
and meet the statutory requirements of the Clean  Air Act.  The sector-based strategy  and the
investment in FY 2012 will assist EPA in addressing 25 rules in the refining sector that are under
legal deadlines and various Risk Technology Reviews (RTR) that are under legal deadlines.

This strategy includes:

•  Prioritize rules for  large stationary sources of air toxics, providing  the greatest opportunity
   for cost-effective  emissions reductions; including  petroleum  refining; iron  and  steel;
   chemical  manufacturing; utilities;  non-utility  boilers;  oil and  gas; and  Portland  cement.
   Emissions from every one of these seven key  categories occur  in areas where there is the
   potential to disproportionately affect minority communities.
•  Reduce air toxic emissions from chemical plants  and refineries.   While many chemical and
   refining  emission points are well understood, some sources, such as  leaks from  process
   piping, startups and shutdown, malfunctions, flaring, and wastewater are more  difficult to
   characterize, and may not be sufficiently controlled.
•  Provide better information to communities through monitoring, including  facility fence line
   and remote monitoring, and national assessments.
•  Involve other related organizations and stakeholders in planning and implementation.
•  Improve data collection  both through  efforts directed by OAR  and through  enhanced data
   collection during enforcement activities.

Indoor Air

The Indoor Air Program characterizes the risks of indoor air pollutants to human health including
radon,  environmental triggers of asthma, and tobacco smoke; develops techniques for reducing
those risks;  and educates the public about indoor air quality (IAQ) actions they can take to
reduce their risks from IAQ problems. Often the people most exposed to indoor air pollutants
are those most susceptible to the effects—the young,  the elderly, and the chronically ill.  In FY
2012, funding will be reduced for partnership and outreach support with external stakeholders
and the Radiation  and Indoor Environments National Laboratory  (R&IE), and the Tools for
Schools program will be eliminated.  Despite these  reductions, EPA will continue to educate and
encourage individuals,  local  communities,  school officials, industry,  the health-care community,
Tribal programs, and others  to take action to reduce health risks in indoor environments such as
homes,  schools, and workplaces.   Outreach includes 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 focus  of all these efforts  is to
support communities' and state and  local  agencies' efforts to address indoor  air quality health
risks.

The Radon Program promotes action to reduce the public's  risk to indoor radon (second only to
smoking  as a cause of lung  cancer).  In FY 2012,  EPA will reduce  regional support for Radon
Program  outreach,  education, guidance, and technical  assistance. Despite these reductions, this

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           18

-------
non-regulatory program will continue to encourage and facilitate 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.  Funding is maintained for the State Indoor Radon
Grant Program, which provides categorical grants to develop, implement, and enhance programs
that assess and mitigate radon risks.  In FY 2011, EPA launched a new radon initiative with other
federal agencies  to significantly increase attention to radon  testing,  mitigation and public
education opportunities within each agency's sphere of responsibility.  Implementation of these
strategies will be pursued in FY 2012.

Stratospheric Ozone - Domestic and Montreal Protocol

EPA's stratospheric ozone protection program implements 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), continuing the control and reduction of ozone depleting substances
(ODS) in the U.S. and lowering health risks to the American public.  As ODS and many of their
substitutes  are also potent GHGs, appropriate control  and reduction of these substances also
provides  significant benefits for climate protection.   The  Act provides for a phase out of
production and consumption of ODS  and requires controls on their  use, including banning
certain emissive  uses, requiring  labeling to inform consumer choices, and requiring sound
servicing practices for the  use of ODS  in  various  products  (e.g.,  air conditioning and
refrigeration).  The Act  also  prohibits  venting  ODS or  their substitutes,  including  other
Fluorinated gases (F-gases) such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). As a signatory to the Montreal
Protocol, the U.S. is committed to ensuring that our domestic program is at least as stringent as
international  obligations and to regulating and enforcing its terms domestically.  In  FY 2012,
EPA will focus its work to ensure that ODS production and import caps under the Montreal
Protocol  and Clean Air Act continue to be met.

Radiation

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies, states, Tribes, stakeholders,
and international  radiation protection organizations to develop and use voluntary and regulatory
programs, public information, and training to reduce public exposure to radiation. Responding to
advances in uranium production processes and mining  operations, the Agency is updating its
radiation protection standards for the uranium fuel cycle, which were developed over 30  years
ago, to ensure that they  continue to be protective  of public health and the environment.  In FY
2012, EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT), a  component of the Agency's
emergency response structure, will continue to ensure that it maintains and improves the level of
readiness to support federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations under the
National  Response Framework (NRF) and the National  Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP).
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           19

-------
Research

In FY 2012, EPA is strengthening its planning and delivery of science by implementing a more
integrated research approach that looks at problems systematically instead of individually. This
approach will create synergy and yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are
more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. EPA is realigning and integrating
the work of twelve of its base research programs into four new research programs (further
described in the Highlighted programs section of the appendix):

   •  Air, Climate, and Energy
   •  Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
   •  Sustainable and Healthy Communities
   •  Chemical Safety and Sustainability

The  new Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) program (Figure  1) integrates existing EPA research
programs on environmental and human health impacts related to air pollution, mercury, climate
change, and biofuels.  Protecting human  health and the environment  from the  effects of air
pollution and climate change, while sustainably meeting the demands of a growing population
and economy, is critical to the well-being of the nation and the world. As we explore emerging
technologies to reduce emissions, we are challenged by uncertainties surrounding  human health
and environmental risks from exposure to an evolving array of air pollutants. This multifaceted
environment reflects the interplay  of air quality, the changing climate, and emerging energy
options.   By  integrating air, climate and energy  research EPA will  conduct research to
understand the  complexity of these  interactions and provide models  and tools  necessary for
communities and for policy makers at all levels of government to make the best decisions.

The  ACE research program is working with partners from across  EPA, as well  as  applicable
external stakeholders, to identify the critical science questions that will be addressed under three
major research themes.

   •  Theme 1:  Develop and evaluate multi-pollutant, regional, and  sector-based approaches
       and advance more cost-effective and innovative strategies to reduce air emissions  that
       adversely affect atmospheric integrity.
   •  Theme  2:   Assess  the impacts of atmospheric pollution,  accounting for interactions
       between climate change, air quality, and water quality.
   •  Theme 3: Provide environmental modeling, monitoring, metrics,  and  information needed
       by communities to adapt to the impacts of  climate change.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           20

-------
Figure 1: This illustrates the
EPA Research budget under
the FY 2012 Budget Request,
which includes 4 new
integrated programs and
continues 2 programs.  The
new integrated Air, Climate
and Energy Research program
will address EPA Strategic
Plan Goal 1: Taking Action on
Climate Change and Ensuring
Air Quality. This budget
structure will maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of
EPA's new integrated,
transdisciplinary approach to
research, which will catalyze
innovative,  sustainable
solutions to the problems
being addressed by our
research partners.
  RESEARCH:

EPA Labs, Centers*
 Program Offices
INTEGRATED RESEARCH
  RESEARCH:

External Research
   Partners
In FY 2012, the ACE research program will study the generation, fate, transport, and chemical
transformation of air emissions to identify individual and population health risks. The program
will incorporate air, climate, and biofuel research to ensure  the  development of sustainable
solutions and attainment of statutory goals in a complex multipollutant environment.  The ACE
program will conduct research to better understand and assess the effects of global change on air
quality, water quality, aquatic ecosystems, land use (e.g. for biofuel feedstocks), human health
and social well being  and  will  conduct systems-based  sustainability  analyses that  include
environmental,  social and economic dimensions.  Research will also determine how the use of
new and existing biofuels will affect critical  ecosystem services and human health.  The goal of
this work is to  explore how modified behaviors and technology designs could decrease the
potential  impacts of biofuels.   EPA will continue to leverage the success of  the Science to
Achieve Results (STAR) grants program, which supports innovative and cutting-edge research
from scientists  in academia through  a competitive  and peer-reviewed grant process that is
integrated with EPA's overall research efforts.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                             21

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                              Protecting America's Waters
Protect  and restore our waters to ensure that drinking water is safe, and that aquatic ecosystems
sustain fish, plants and wildlife, and economic, recreational, and subsistence activities.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
    •   Reduce human exposure  to  contaminants in drinking water,  fish and shellfish,  and
       recreational waters, including protecting source waters.
    •   Protect  the quality of rivers, lakes,  streams, and  wetlands  on a watershed basis,  and
       protect urban, coastal, and ocean waters.
                               GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                      Budget Authority
                                    Full-time Equivalents
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Protecting America's
Waters
Protect Human Health
Protect and Restore
Watersheds and Aquatic
Ecosystems
Total Authorized
Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$5,645,339.6
$1,837,338.4
$3,808,001.2
3,501.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$4,989,963.6
$1,614,421.0
$3,375,542.5
3,471.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$5,645,339.6
$1,837,338.4
$3,808,001.2
3,501.9
FY2012
Pres Budget
$4,342,645.5
$1,369,962.1
$2,972,683.4
3,433.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($1,302,694.1)
($467,376.3)
($835,317.8)
-68.0
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           22

-------
                                          Goal 2

                               Protecting America's Waters

Protect  and restore our waters to ensure  that drinking water  is safe,  and that aquatic
ecosystems  sustain fish, plants and wildlife, and economic,  recreational, and subsistence
activities.

Introduction

While much progress  has  been  made, America's waters  remain  imperiled.  From  nutrient
loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and drinking  water  contaminants,  water
quality  and enforcement programs face complex challenges that demand both traditional and
innovative strategies.  EPA will work hand-in-hand with states and tribes to develop nutrient
limits and intensify our work to restore and protect the quality  of the nation's  streams, rivers,
lakes, bays, oceans, and aquifers. We will also use our authority to protect and restore threatened
natural  treasures such as the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico;  to
address our neglected urban rivers; to ensure safe drinking water; and, to reduce pollution from
nonpoint and industrial dischargers.  EPA will continue to work on measures to address post-
construction runoff,  water-quality  impairments  from surface mining,  and  drinking  water
contamination.

Recent  national surveys1 have found that our waters are stressed by nutrient pollution, excess
sedimentation,  and degradation of shoreline vegetation, which affect upwards of 50 percent of
our lakes and streams.   The rate at which new waters are listed for water quality impairments
exceeds the pace at which restored waters are removed from the list. For many years, nonpoint
source pollution, principally nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments,  has been recognized as the
largest remaining impediment to improving water quality.  However, pollution discharged from
industrial, municipal, agricultural, and stormwater point sources continue to  cause a decline in
the quality  of  our waters.   Other significant contributors include  loss  of habitat and habitat
fragmentation, and hydrologic alteration.

To continue making progress, the Agency needs effective partnerships with the states, tribes and
communities.    We  will continue  the increased  focus  on  communities,  particularly  those
disadvantaged  communities  facing  disproportionate impacts  or  having  been  historically
underserved.

As part of the  Administration's long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a  Sustainable Water
Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with States and Communities to enhance technical,
managerial  and  financial  capacity.   Important to the technical  capacity will be enhancing
alternatives analysis to expand "green infrastructure" options and their multiple benefits.  Future
year budgets  for the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) gradually  adjust,  taking  into  account
1 U.S. EPA, 2006. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams. EPA 841-B-06-002.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey. See also EPA, 2010. National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey
of the Nation 'sLakes. EPA 841-R-09-001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/lakessurvey/pdf/nla chapter0.pdf.

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            23

-------
repayments, through 2016 with the  goal  of providing, on average, about 5 percent of water
infrastructure spending annually. When coupled with increasing repayments from loans made in
past years by states, the annual funding will allow the SRFs to finance a significant percentage in
clean water and drinking water infrastructure.   Federal dollars provided through the SRFs will
act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide  planning and ongoing management of sustainable
water infrastructure.  Overall, the Administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs.

                            Major FY 2012 Investment Areas

Water Quality

The Section  106 grant program supports  prevention and control measures that improve water
quality.  In FY 2012, EPA is requesting a total additional investment of $21 million in Section
106 funding of which $18.3 million will strengthen state and interstate programs to address Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), nutrient and wet weather issues. Approximately $2.7 million of
the additional funding will be directed to  eligible tribes to meet funding needs  for tribal water
quality programs.

Drinking Water

In FY 2012,  an additional $5.2 million is  being requested to replace obsolete and expensive to
maintain drinking water information system technology, support state data management, develop
the capability to post drinking water compliance  monitoring data on a secured internet portal,
facilitate compliance monitoring data collection and transfer, and improve data quality. EPA, in
concert with  states, is working to collect and display all compliance monitoring data as  part of
the Drinking Water Strategy. This increase will also be used to replace SDWIS-State, reducing
state need to keep individual compliance databases.

                     Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions

    •   Reducing funds for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program, while continuing
       federal support for safe drinking water, will result in fewer new projects.

    •   Reducing funds for  the Clean  Water  State Revolving Fund, while  continuing  federal
       support clean water infrastructure, will result in fewer projects.

    •   Reducing funds for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, while maintaining a significant
       investment in activities such as sediment cleanup and habitat restoration.

    •   Reducing funds for state Nonpoint  Source  grants will result in 100 to 150 fewer projects
       as compared to 716 projects funded in FY 2010.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           24

-------
                                     Priority Goals

EPA has established two Priority Goals to improve water quality.  The Priority Goals are:

   Improve Water Quality: Chesapeake Bay
   •   Chesapeake Bay watershed states (including the District of Columbia) will develop and
       submit approvable Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of CY 2010 and
       Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011  in support of EPA's final Chesapeake Bay Total
       Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

   Improve Water Quality: Drinking Water Standards
   •   Over the next two years, EPA will initiate review/revision of at least 4 drinking water
       standards to strengthen public health protection.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals
as necessary and appropriate.

FY 2012 Activities

EPA has identified core water program activities within its safe and clean water programs in FY
2012 to highlight three  of the Administrator's priority areas: Urban Waters, the Drinking Water
Strategy, and Climate Change.

The  National  Water Program will continue to place  emphasis on  watershed  stewardship,
watershed-based  approaches,  water efficiencies,  and best practices  through  Environmental
Management Systems.  EPA will specifically focus on green infrastructure, nutrients, and trading
among point sources  and non-point sources for water quality upgrades. In FY 2012, 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.

In FY 2012, the Agency will begin some new  areas of activity, expand some existing strategies,
and discontinue others.

Drinking Water

To help achieve the Administrator's  priority to protect America's waters, in FY 2012, EPA will
continue to implement  the new Drinking Water Strategy, a new approach to  expanding public
health protection for drinking water.  The Agency will focus on regulating groups of drinking
water contaminants,  improving water treatment  technology, utilizing the authority of multiple
statutes where  appropriate,  and,   expanding  its  communication with  states,  tribes  and
communities to increase confidence in the quality of drinking water.

During FY 2012, EPA, the states, and  community  water systems will build on past successes
while working toward the FY 2012 goal of assuring that 91 percent of the population served by

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           25

-------
community  water systems  receives  drinking  water that meets  all  applicable health-based
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 implementation by  providing guidance,  training, and  technical assistance;  ensuring
proper certification of water system operators; promoting consumer awareness of drinking water
safety; and  maintaining  the  rate of  system  sanitary surveys and  onsite reviews to promote
compliance with drinking water standards.

To help ensure that water is  safe to drink and because  aging drinking water infrastructure can
impact  water quality,  EPA  requests  $990 million to continue EPA's commitment for the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. This request will fund new infrastructure improvement
projects for public drinking  water  systems.  EPA will, in concert with the states, focus this
affordable, flexible financial  assistance to support utility compliance  with  safe drinking water
standards.  EPA will also work with utilities to promote technical, financial, and managerial
capacity as  a  critical means  to meet  infrastructure  needs,  and further enhance  program
performance and efficiency.

Homeland Security

EPA has a major  role in supporting the  protection of the nation's  critical  water infrastructure
from terrorist threats.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue efforts towards protecting the nation's
water infrastructure.   In  FY  2012, the Agency  will provide technical  support to the existing
Water  Security Initiative (WSI) pilots, assist in  conducting outreach efforts to migrate lessons
learned from the pilots to the water sector, and develop and execute an approach to promote
national voluntary adoption of effective and sustainable drinking water contamination warning
systems.  The  FY 2012  request  includes $7.3  million for WSI pilot  support and evaluation
activities, as well as  dissemination of information and transfer of knowledge.  Additionally, the
FY 2012 request includes $1.3 million for Water Laboratory Alliance for threat reduction efforts.

Clean Water

In FY  2012, EPA will continue to collaborate with states and tribes to make progress toward
EPA's clean water goals. EPA's FY 2012 request includes a total of $444 million in categorical
grants for clean water programs. EPA will implement core clean water programs and promising
innovations  on a watershed basis to  accelerate  water quality improvements.  Building on 30
years of clean water successes, EPA, in conjunction with states  and tribes, will  implement the
Clean Water Act by  focusing on TMDLs and National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System
(NPDES) permits built  upon scientifically sound water  quality standards,  technology-based
pollutant discharge limits, effective water monitoring, strong programs for controlling nonpoint
sources of pollution, stringent  discharge permit programs,  and revolving fund capitalization
grants to our partners to build, revive, and "green" our aging infrastructure.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           26

-------
                          WQ-8a
       # of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA
       [Total TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national
                     policy (cumulative)
  50000
                                        I Annual Target
                                        I End-of-Year Results
         2006
               2007
                     2008   2009
                                 2010
The Agency's FY 2012 request continues the monitoring initiative begun in 2005 to strengthen
the nationwide monitoring  network and complete  statistically-valid surveys  of the  nation's
waters.   The results  of these efforts  are  scientifically-defensible water  quality data  and
information essential for cleaning up and protecting the nation's waters.  Progress in improving
coastal and ocean waters documented in the National Coastal Condition Report,  will focus 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) to enable EPA partners to improve wastewater treatment, non-point sources of
pollution, and estuary revitalization. Realizing the long-term benefits derived from the CWSRF,
EPA is continuing our CWSRF commitment by requesting $1.55 billion in FY 2012.

By integrating sustainable community efforts and urban water quality efforts, EPA  plans to assist
communities, particularly underserved communities, in restoring their urban waters. EPA  will
help communities become active participants in restoration and protection by helping to increase
their awareness and stewardship of local urban waters.  Safe and clean urban waters can enhance
economic,  educational,  recreational, and social  opportunities.    By  linking  water  quality
improvement activities to these  community priorities and partnering with  federal,  state, local,
and non-governmental partners, EPA will help to sustain local commitment  over the longer time
frame that  is required for water quality improvement.  In FY 2012, EPA will provide grants to
reconnect communities with their local urban waters and engage them in local restoration efforts.
Focus areas may  include: promoting green infrastructure to reduce contaminated, urban runoff;
promoting volunteer monitoring; and tailoring outreach to communities. As  urban  waters impact
large populations in both urban and upstream areas, this grants program will offer visibility to
innovative  approaches  for water  quality  improvement  that can be adapted  in surrounding
communities, thus promoting replication of successful practices.

EPA will continue to address climate change impacts to water resource programs as well as to
mitigate  greenhouse gas emissions  resulting from water  activities by building  capacity to
consider climate change as core missions under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           27

-------
Act are implemented.  Climate change will exacerbate water quality stressors such as stormwater
and nutrient  pollution and could  add new stressors  such as those related to the expanding
renewable energy development.  WaterSense, Climate Ready Estuaries, Climate Ready Water
Utilities and Green Infrastructure are examples of programs that will help stakeholders adapt to
climate change in FY 2012, and programs targeted at vulnerable populations will be increasingly
important.  Efforts to incorporate  climate  change considerations into key programs will help
protect water quality as well as the nation's  investment in  drinking  water and wastewater
treatment infrastructure.

Geographic Water Programs

The Administration has launched numerous cross-agency collaborations to promote coordination
among agencies toward  achieving Presidential priorities, which include a suite of large aquatic
ecosystem  restoration efforts.  Three prominent examples of this  kind of  cross-agency
collaboration for EPA are cooperative restoration efforts in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay
and the Gulf of Mexico.  These  three large water bodies have been  exposed to substantial
pollution over many years and a coordinated federal response is critical for maintaining progress
on environmental priorities.  Coastal estuaries and wetlands are also vulnerable.  Working with
stakeholders, EPA has established  special programs to protect and restore each of these unique
resources.

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 urban waters,
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.   EPA  and  Federal partners  will  continue  to coordinate with  States,  Tribes,
municipalities, and industry to restore the integrity of imperiled waters of the United States.

Great Lakes:

EPA is providing $350 million in funding for ecosystem restoration efforts for the Great Lakes,
the largest freshwater system in the world.  This EPA-led interagency effort to restore the  Great
Lakes focuses on priority environmental  issues  such as  contaminated sediments and toxics,
nonpoint source pollution, habitat degradation and loss, and invasive species.
To restore  and protect this national treasure, the Obama  Administration developed the  Great
Lakes Restoration  Initiative  (GLRI).   Led by  EPA,  the  GLRI  invests in  the  region's
environmental and public health through a  coordinated interagency process.  Principal  agencies
involved in the GLRI are USD A, NOAA, HHS, DHS, HUD, DOS, DOD-Army, DOI, and  DOT.
In FY 2012, EPA will  continue to lead the implementation  of the  Great  Lakes Restoration
Initiative, implementing  both federal projects and  projects  with states, tribes, municipalities,
universities, and other organizations.  Progress will continue in each of the  GLRI's five  focus
areas  through implementation of  on-the-ground actions.   The  GLRI  provides the  level  of
investment and the interagency coordination required  to successfully  address these five issues
across the region.  The initiative will specifically target work to restore beneficial uses in  Areas
of Concern, including Great Lakes  Legacy Act projects, nearshore work,  and  habitat restoration,
prioritizing delistings of Areas of Concern.

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           28

-------
The initiative identifies $350 million for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the
most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem, a $125 million decrease
from FY 2010,  the first year of the initiative.  The initiative will implement the most important
projects  for Great Lakes Restoration  and achieve visible results.  FY 2012 activities  will
emphasize  implementation and include grants to  implement the Initiative by funding  states,
tribes and other partners. EPA expects substantial progress within each of the Initiative's focus
areas by focusing on the following actions within them:

•  Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern: EPA  is working closely with non-Federal
   partners to  address beneficial use impairments in areas of concern including Great Lakes
   Legacy Act clean-ups of contaminated sediments.

•  Invasive Species:  GLRI has supported priority Asian Carp work including^ the installation of
   structures by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USAGE) at the electric barrier  site to
   reduce the risk of bypass by Asian carpj and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Illinois
   Department of Natural Resource efforts to detect and remove Asian Carp from the system.
   As needed, GLRI will invest in additional efforts to keep Asian Carp from becoming
   established  in the  Great Lakes while continuing to address  Invasive Species -priorities such
   as  the  development  of Ballast Water Treatment technologies;  assistance to  states  and
   communities in preventing the introduction of invasive  species and controlling existing
   populations; establishing  early  detection  and  rapid  response  capabilities;  and  the
   implementation of Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans by the FWS partnership.

•  Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source: Targeted watershed  plan implementation will be
   undertaken  by EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources  Conservation
   Service (NRCS), FWS, USGS, state programs, and tribal governments. Additionally, GLRI
   funds have  been marked for NRCS to work directly with agricultural producers in specific,
   high  priority watersheds to install conservation practices on their operations to reduce soil
   erosion and non-point source nutrient loading to waters of the Great Lakes Basin.

•  Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration: GLRI funding has been targeted for
   FWS efforts to fund projects related to species and habitat management such as restoring
   wetlands, improving the hydrology of Great Lakes tributaries, reforesting habitats, reducing
   impacts  of invasive  species, and creating  and/or improving  corridors between habitats.
   Additionally, NRCS supports habitat restoration and protection efforts of agricultural lands
   through the programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

•  Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships:
   EPA's National Coastal Condition  Assessment will  provide a framework and organization
   for a Comprehensive Great Lakes Coastal  Assessment that will establish baseline conditions
   of environmental quality and variability of the near-shore waters, bottom substrate, and biota.
   All  agencies will participate  in the Great  Lakes  Accountability  System  where  partner
   agencies will report quality controlled information regularly  on GLRI progress in meeting the
   objectives and targets of this Action Plan.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           29

-------
EPA expects to reach a target of 23.9 using a 40.0 scale for improving the overall ecosystem
health of the Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and protect aquatic systems.  Also by FY
2012, EPA expects to have removed 26 beneficial use impairments from AOCs within the basin.

Chesapeake Bay:

Increased funding for the Chesapeake Bay will support Bay watershed States as they implement
their plans to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in an unprecedented effort to restore this
economically important ecosystem.  President Obama's 2009 Executive Order (EO) tasked a
team of federal agencies to draft a way forward for protection and restoration of the Chesapeake
watershed.  This team—the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the  Chesapeake Bay—is
chaired by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and includes senior
representatives from the departments  of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland  Security,
Interior and Transportation.

The FLC developed the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.,
which was released in May 2010.  Work that has taken place under the EO can be categorized
according to the Goal Areas and Supporting Strategies identified in the EO  Strategy, specifically
around its four "Goal Areas" of work:

•  Restore Water Quality: Examples of efforts in this area include: EPA issuance of a TMDL
   for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to meet water quality  standards; USDA development
   of suites of conservation practices to improve water quality  and targeting of technical and
   financial assistance in high-priority watersheds; EPA/DOI/NOAA research and partnerships
   to address toxic pollutant contamination in the Bay.

•  Restore Habitat:  Examples of efforts in this area include: the partnership among USFWS,
   NOAA, USGS, NRCS,  FHWA, and NPS to restore and enhance wetlands  and to conduct
   supporting research; the partnership among USDA, USFS, and USFWS to  restore riparian
   forest buffers; work by USFWS, NOAA, and NRCS to restore historical fish migratory
   routes; and work by Federal agencies  in general, including USFWS, USGS, NOAA, EPA,
   USAGE, NRCS, and USFS, to strengthen science support for habitat restoration.

•  Sustain Fish and Wildlife:  Examples  of efforts in this area include: work by NOAA and the
   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to restore native oyster habitat and populations;
   NOAA's work to  rebuild the  blue crab population target; work by USFWS, USFS, and
   NOAA to restore brook trout, black duck,  and other species; NRCS's work to support the
   establishment and  protection of terrestrial habitat on private lands; the partnership among
   NOAA,  USAGE,  USFWS,  USGS, states and  local organizations to strengthen science
   support to sustain fish and wildlife.

•  Conserve Land and  Increase  Public Access:   Examples of efforts  in this area include:
   collaboration among DOI, USDA, NOAA, DOT, DOD, states and local agencies  on the
   launch of a Chesapeake Treasured Landscape Initiative; work by NPS,  USFWS, USDA,
   NOAA, USGS, DOT, and HUD on coordinated conservation actions, watershed-wide GIS-
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          30

-------
   based land conservation targeting system, and developing integrated transportation, land use,
   housing and water infrastructure plans for smart growth.

The $67.4 million Chesapeake Bay program FY 2012 budget request will allow EPA to continue
to implement the President's  Executive Order  (E.O.)  on Chesapeake  Bay Protection and
Restoration, to implement the  Chesapeake  Bay  Total  Maximum  Daily Load  (TMDL),  to
facilitate coordination of goals  and activities of  federal,  state and  local  partners in  the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, to  support the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions  in implementing the
TMDL, to assist  program partners in their protection and restoration efforts, to increase the
accountability and transparency of the program, to continue responding to oversight reports, and
to address other priority initiatives as they arise.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the nation's largest and most complex TMDL, will necessitate
significant  scientific,  technical, and programmatic support to states and local jurisdictions in
developing and implementing the most appropriate programs for meeting  their responsibilities
under the TMDL allocations.  EPA has engaged multiple programs and offices to provide the
regulatory, legal, enforcement, and technical support necessary to meet these challenges.

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).  Along with its federal and state partners, EPA has stated its intention to
establish two-year milestones for all actions needed  to restore water quality, habitats, and fish
and shellfish.

Other Geographic Programs:

In FY 2012 EPA will continue cooperation with federal, state and Tribal governments and other
stakeholders toward achieving the national goal of no net loss of wetlands under the Clean Water
Action Section 404 regulatory  program.   The FY 2012  budget  request for NEPs and coastal
watersheds is  $27.1 million to help accomplish a target of 100,000 acres protected or restored
within National Estuary Program study areas.

After the recent catastrophe from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Obama signed
Executive Order  13554 which  established the Gulf Coat Ecosystem Restoration  Task Force,
chaired by EPA Administrator Jackson.  The Task Force will serve as the  Federal lead in Gulf
Coast restoration, building off of the tremendous early efforts of the Working Group, the Gulf of
Mexico Alliance, and others, while working to assist the Deepwater Horizon  NRD  Trustee
Council.   The Trustee Council  will focus on  restoring, rehabilitating, or replacing the natural
resources damaged by the oil spill, while the Task Force and its Federal  agency partners will
focus their individual efforts  on the broader  suite  of impacts afflicting the Gulf Coast region.
The Task Force will provide a broad vision and strategy to guide federal cooperative efforts to
address the degradation of this region and to reverse longstanding problems that have contributed
to its decline.

The Executive Order tasked the  Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force with developing a
Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration  Strategy within one year.  The  Strategy will

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            31

-------
identify major policy areas where coordinated Federal-state action is necessary and will also
consider existing  restoration  planning efforts in the  region  to  identify planning  gaps and
restoration needs, both on a state-by-state basis and on a broad regional scale, setting milestones
and performance indicators by which to measure progress of  the long-term restoration effort.
This strategy, combined with the NRD restoration plan,  will likely serve to inform  Federal
investments in ecosystem restoration in the Gulf region over the next decade.  EPA will  provide
assistance to other federal, state, and local partners to ensure that the  water, wetlands, and
beaches will be restored, and the surrounding communities will be revitalized.

As a complement to the Agency's actions in the immediate Gulf coast, EPA's Mississippi River
Basin  program  will  address excessive nutrient loadings  that  contribute  to water  quality
impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. Working
with the  Gulf Hypoxia Task  Force, Gulf of Mexico Alliance  and other states  within  the
Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins, and  other federal agencies, EPA will help  target efforts
within 2-3 critical watersheds to implement effective strategies that can yield significant progress
in addressing nonpoint source nutrient pollution.

Research

In FY 2012, EPA  is strengthening  its planning  and delivery  of  science by implementing an
integrated research  approach that looks at problems systematically  instead of individually. This
approach  will allow EPA to  consider a broader  set of issues and objectives while bridging
traditional scientific disciplines.  EPA is realigning and integrating the work of twelve of its base
research programs into four new research programs (as discussed further in the Goal 1 overview
and appendix):

   •   Air, Climate, and Energy
   •   Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
   •   Sustainable and Healthy Communities
   •   Chemical Safety and Sustainability

EPA will use these integrated research programs to develop  a deeper understanding  of our
environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals.   In FY
2012,  the Agency  proposes to realign elements of the Water Quality  and Drinking Water
research programs into the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research (SSWR) Program.

Increased demands, land use practices, population  growth, aging infrastructure, and  climate
variability, pose challenges to our nation's water resources.  Such competing interests require the
development of innovative new solutions for water resource managers and  other decision
makers. To address these challenges, EPA research will  enable the following in FY 2012:

   •   Protection and restoration of watersheds to provide water quality necessary  for sustained
       ecosystem health.

   •   Treatment technologies and  management strategies needed to ensure water  is  safe  to
       drink.

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            32

-------
    •   Water infrastructure capable of the sustained delivery of safe water, providing for the
       removal and treatment of wastewater consistent with its sustainable and safe re-use, and
       management of stormwater in a manner that values it as a resource and a component of
       sustainable water resources.

The new SSWR research program will address and adapt to future water resources management
needs to ensure that natural and engineered water systems have the capacity and resiliency to
meet current and future water needs to support the range of growing water-use and ecological
requirements.

Through the SSWR program, the research program is investing  an additional $6.1 million to
address potential  water supply  endangerments associated  with  hydraulic  fracturing (HF).
Congress has urged EPA to conduct this research, which supports the Agency's efforts to ensure
the protection of our aquifers.  The Agency proposes to conduct additional case studies on a
greater number of geographic and  geologic situations to  reflect the range of conditions under
which HF operates, and on FTP practices that will help more fully  characterize the  factors that
may lead to risks to public  health.  In addition, the Agency will develop models to assess risk to
water resources based on geologic, geographic, hydrologic,  toxicological  and biogeochemical
factors and thus support identification of situations that could be more susceptible to infiltration
from hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Within the SSWR program, green infrastructure research will continue to  assess, develop, and
compile scientifically rigorous tools and models that will be used  by EPA's Office of Water,
states, and municipalities.  EPA will continue to leverage the success of the Science to Achieve
Results (STAR) grants program,  which supports innovative and  cutting-edge research  from
scientists in academia through a competitive and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated
with EPA's overall research efforts.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            33

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

           Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development

Clean up communities, advance sustainable development, and protect disproportionately
impacted low-income, minority, and tribal communities. Prevent releases of harmful substances
and clean up and restore contaminated areas.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:


    •   Support sustainable, resilient, and livable  communities by  working with local, state,
       tribal, and  federal partners to  promote smart growth, emergency  preparedness and
       recovery  planning,  brownfield  redevelopment,  and the  equitable  distribution  of
       environmental benefits.

    •   Conserve resources and  prevent  land  contamination by reducing waste generation,
       increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products.

    •   Prepare for and respond to accidental or intentional releases of contaminants and clean up
       and restore polluted sites.

    •   Support federally-recognized tribes to build environmental  management capacity, assess
       environmental conditions and measure results, and implement environmental programs in
       Indian country.
                              GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                     Budget Authority
                                   Full-time Equivalents
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Cleaning Up Our Communities
Promote Sustainable and Livable
Communities
Preserve Land
Restore Land
Strengthen Human Health and
Environmental Protection in
Indian Country
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,075,066.9
$522,238.6
$273,342.2
$1,198,659.5
$80,826.6
4,483.9
FY2010
Actuals
$2,232,328.3
$556,970.1
$273,545.2
$1,316,495.2
$85,317.7
4,517.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$2,073,066.9
$520,238.6
$273,342.2
$1,198,659.5
$80,826.6
4,483.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$2,017,061.5
$504,464.9
$264,903.3
$1,133,624.1
$114,069.2
4,338.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($58,005.4)
($17,773.7)
($8,438.9)
($65,035.4)
$33,242.6
-145.6
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          34

-------
                                         GoalS

           Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development

Clean up communities, advance sustainable development, and protect disproportionately
impacted low-income, minority, and tribal communities. Prevent releases of harmful
substances and clean up and restore contaminated areas.

                                      Introduction

Land is one of America's most valuable resources and EPA strives to clean up communities to
create a safer environment for all Americans.  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.  EPA will continue efforts to prevent and reduce the risks posed by releases
of harmful  substances  to land;  to clean up  communities; to  strengthen state  and Tribal
partnerships; and to expand the conversation on environmentalism and work for environmental
justice.   The  Agency also will  work to advance  sustainable development and  to  protect
disproportionately impacted low-income, minority,  and Tribal  communities through outreach
and protection efforts for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work collaboratively with state and Tribal partners to prevent
and  reduce exposure to  contaminants.  Improved compliance  at high risk oil  and chemical
facilities through rulemaking  and  increased  inspections  will  help prevent  exposure by
encouraging compliance with environmental regulations. This is another focus of the FY 2012
investments.   In order to address  exposures to  releases that have already occurred and/or will
occur in the  future,  EPA will continue  implement the  Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI)
program. The purpose of ICI is to coordinate the relevant tools available in each of the clean-up
programs in order to  accelerate the pace of cleanups in the most effective and efficient manner to
appropriately  service communities.   These efforts will be supported by sound scientific data,
research, and cost-effective tools that alert EPA to emerging issues and inform Agency decisions
on managing materials and addressing contaminated properties.

Improving a community's ability to  make decisions that affect its environment is at the heart of
EPA's community-centered work.  Challenging and complex  environmental problems, such as
contaminated  soil, sediment, and groundwater that can cause human health concerns, persist at
many contaminated  properties.  The burden of a  single  blighted and contaminated site, or
multiple blighted and contaminated sites concentrated within an  area, can weigh down an entire
community. Oftentimes, there is no  obvious reuse for a contaminated property and communities
struggle with what will happen at the site.  This dilemma results in long-term environmental and
economic community distress.   As multiple sites are often connected through infrastructure and
geographic location,  approaching  the assessment and cleanup needs  of the entire area can be
more effective than focusing on individual sites in isolation of the surrounding area.

Many communities across the  country  regularly face risks posed by intentional and accidental
releases of harmful substances into the environment.  EPA and its state partners issue, update, or

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           35

-------
maintain RCRA permits for approximately 2,500 hazardous waste facilities. In addition, there
are over 1,627 sites total on NPL nationwide.  Contaminants at these hazardous waste sites are
often complex  chemical mixtures affecting multiple environmental media.   In  other words,
operations at a  site may have contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soil,  at times also
impacting indoor and outdoor air quality. The precise impact of many contaminant mixtures on
human health remains uncertain; however, substances commonly found at Superfund sites have
been linked to a variety of human health problems, such as birth defects, infertility, cancer, and
changes  in neurobehavioral functions.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue its work to  cleanup,
redevelop, and revitalize contaminated sites.

There is a critical need for the  Agency  to  increase its  capacity to prevent and respond to
accidental releases of harmful substances, including  oil spills, by developing clear authorities,
training  personnel,  and providing proper  equipment.   Recent spills and  releases at  oil and
chemical facilities have resulted in human injuries and deaths, severe environmental damage, and
great financial loss.  The BP Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill disaster resulted in 11 deaths,
millions  of  gallons  of spilled  oil, and untold environmental damage.   Likewise,  accidents
reported  to EPA by  the current universe of Risk Management Program (RMP) facilities have
resulted  in over 40  worker deaths, nearly 1,500 worker  injuries, more than 300,000 people
sheltered in place,  and more than $1 billion in on-site and  off-site damages.  EPA will increase
its capacity for compliance monitoring and inspections at these facilities in FY 2012.

                            Major FY 2012 Investment Areas

Regaining Ground:  Increasing Compliance in High Risk Oil and Chemical Facilities

The Oil  Spill program helps  protect U.S. waters  by effectively  preventing, preparing for,
responding to, and monitoring oil spills.  EPA also works  with state and local  partners through
the State and Local  Prevention and Preparedness Program to help  protect the public and the
environment from catastrophic releases of hazardous substances that occur at chemical facilities.
EPA currently conducts over 550  inspections at chemical  facilities per year (approximately 5
percent  of the universe of RMP facilities in non-delegated states) and 1,100 SPCC inspections
and 250 FRP inspections and  drills at oil facilities per year (0.2 percent of the universe of
640,000  SPCC facilities, 6 percent at  FRP  facilities).  In FY 2012, the Agency will expand its
current prevention activities at high risk oil  and chemical facilities by investing $1 million and 5
FTE to increase oversight of high risk chemical facilities;  $5.1  million and 16 FTE to increase
inspections of high risk oil facilities;  and $1.4 million and 1  FTE to improve compliance and
develop a new database as part of leveraging technology to enhance EPA's compliance efforts
under the Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas initiative.

Support for Tribes

As the largest single source of EPA funding to tribes, the Tribal General Assistance Program
(GAP) provides grants to build capacity  to  administer environmental programs  that may be
authorized by EPA in Indian country.   These grants provide technical assistance  in  the
development of programs to address  environmental  issues on  Indian lands.   An $8.5  million
increase to funding for GAP grants will build tribal capacity and assists tribes in leveraging other

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            36

-------
EPA and  federal funding to  contribute towards a higher  overall level of environmental and
human health protection.

Many  tribes  have  expressed the need  to  start implementing  high priority environmental
programs, but GAP funding may only be used for capacity building.  Increasing GAP grant
funding will  allow tribes to continue to develop  stronger, more sustainable environmental
programs, while allowing more tribes  to  take advantage of  the  new multi-media  tribal
implementation  program.    The  $20  million  investment  in   a  new  multi-media  tribal
implementation grant program will support tribes in addressing individual tribe's most serious
environmental needs through the implementation of environmental programs  and projects, an
ongoing top priority for both tribes and the Agency.

                     Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions

In order to promote fiscal responsibility EPA is also making the tough choices, including:

•  Reducing FTE and funding for waste minimization activities as the program is redirected to
   sustainable materials management and existing  efforts aimed at promoting the reduction,
   reuse and recycling  of municipal  solid waste and industrial materials are discontinued or
   scaled back.

•  Reducing resources devoted to Regional response activities under the Superfund Emergency
   Response and Removal  program, continuing to focus on encouraging PRPs to conduct
   removal  actions and looking for ways to  find  efficiencies and lessen the impact  of the
   reduction.

•  Reducing Federal Facilities and Restoration Program work at  non-NPL sites cleaned up by
   other federal agencies and focusing efforts on meeting statutory oversight responsibilities at
   federal NPL sites.

•  Reducing Superfund remedial construction funding which may have the effect of postponing
   new remedial construction starts, slowing down  the pace of ongoing construction projects,
   and delaying certain site assessment and characterization projects. EPA is exploring program
   efficiencies that may be achieved to limit the impact of this reduction.

•  Decreasing funding for the Agency's homeland security response and preparedness program
   while maintaining the current  level of preparedness.

                                     Priority Goal

EPA has established a Priority Goal to highlight progress made  under the Brownfields Area-
Wide Planning Pilot Program. The Priority Goal is:

•  By 2012 EPA will have initiated 20 enhanced Brownfields community level projects that will
   include a new area-wide  planning  effort to benefit under-served and economically
   disadvantaged communities. This will allow those communities to assess and address a single

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          37

-------
    large or multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-wide
    planning to enable redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale.  EPA will
    provide technical assistance, coordinate its enforcement, water and air quality programs, and
    work with  other  Federal  agencies,  states, tribes  and local  governments to implement
    associated targeted environmental improvements identified in each community's area-wide
    plan.

EPA awarded Brownfields Area-Wide Planning assistance to 23 pilot communities in FY 2011.
Consistent with EPA's Priority Goal commitment, throughout FY 2012 the 23 pilot communities
will continue to use the grant and/or direct contract assistance they received from EPA to initiate
development of a brownfields area-wide plan and determine the next steps and resources needed
to implement the plan.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its priority
goals and will update goals as necessary and appropriate.

                                   FY 2012 Activities

Work under this Goal supports 4 objectives: 1) Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities,
2) Preserve Land;  3)  Restore Land;  and  4) Strengthen Human  Health and Environmental
Protection in Indian Country.   It is also supported by science and research to enhance and
strengthen these objectives.

Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

In FY 2012, EPA  will continue  to use several approaches to promote sustainable, healthier
communities and protect vulnerable populations and disproportionately  impacted low-income,
minority, and tribal  communities.  The Agency especially is concerned about threats to sensitive
populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic diseases.

Brownfields:

EPA's Brownfields program supports states,  local  communities, and Tribes in their efforts to
assess  and  clean up potentially  contaminated  and lightly  contaminated  sites within  their
jurisdiction. This support includes emphasis and participation in Administration-wide initiatives
such as the America's Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative (promoting urban parks and greenways)
and the Partnership  for Sustainable Communities (supporting area-wide planning for sustainable
redevelopment).  EPA will provide technical assistance for Brownfields redevelopment in cities
in transition which are areas  struggling with high unemployment as a result of structural changes
to their economies.  In addition, the Brownfields program  works closely  with  EPA's Smart
Growth program to address  critical issues  for Brownfields  redevelopment, including land
assembly, development permitting issues, financing, parking and street standards, accountability
to uniform systems of information for land use controls, and other factors that influence the
economic viability of Brownfields redevelopment.  The best practices, tools, and lessons learned
from the smart growth program will directly  inform and assist EPA's efforts to increase  area-
wide planning for assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of Brownfields sites.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           38

-------
Smart Growth:

The Agency's Smart Growth Program works across and within EPA and other federal agencies
to help communities grow in ways that strengthen their economies, protect the environment, and
preserve their heritage.  This program focuses on streamlining, concentrating, and leveraging
state and federal assistance in places with the greatest need.  By concentrating and leveraging
federal and state resources in  areas with  specific  needs, EPA hopes to create an  inviting
atmosphere for economic development on which urban, suburban, and rural communities can
capitalize.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue  its strong support for the Federal  DOT, HUD, and
EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities, promote smart growth, and  provide green
building technical assistance to states and local communities. EPA will also continue to develop
additional tools to best assist communities, particularly those that are disadvantaged or have been
adversely  impacted  by  contamination  and environmental  degradation,  in   implementing
sustainable community strategies and approaches.

Environmental Justice:

EPA is committed to ensuring environmental justice regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income. Recognizing that minority and/or low-income communities frequently may be exposed
disproportionately  to environmental harm  and  risks,  the Agency works  to  protect these
communities  from adverse  health and environmental effects and to ensure they are given the
opportunity to participate meaningfully in environmental decisions, including clean-ups.  In FY
2012, EPA's  Environmental  Justice (EJ)  program will intensify its efforts  to incorporate
environmental justice considerations in the rulemaking process.  An ongoing challenge for EPA
has been to develop  rules that implement existing statutory authority while working to reduce
disproportionate exposure and impacts from  multiple sources.  In FY 2012, the EJ program will
work to  apply  effective  methods  suitable for decision-making involving  disproportionate
environmental health impacts on minority,  low-income, and  Tribal populations. EPA is also
working on technical guidance to support the integration of EJ  considerations in analysis that
support EPA's actions.

Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE):

In FY 2012, EPA will continue its successful and innovative Community Action for a Renewed
Environment  (CARE) program  to assist distressed communities in addressing  critical human
health and environmental risks.  Since its launch in 2005, the CARE program has awarded 91
grants to communities  across 39 states to address key  environmental  priorities and achieved
results  in predominantly  environmental justice communities.   Since CARE is  a multi-media
program, projects often address more than one medium. To date, Fifty percent of the grants have
addressed air pollution; 50  percent chemical safety; 30 percent cleanup of contaminated lands;
30 percent water issues; and 25 percent climate change.  With the FY 2012 funding, the CARE
program will  reach approximately 10 new communities.  EPA will provide technical support for
underserved  and other  communities, help  them use  collaborative processes  to  select  and
implement local actions, and award federal funding for projects to reduce exposure to pollutants
and local  environmental  problems.   Under this  program, EPA will  create - and in  several
Regions pilot - a Partners Program  to provide technical support and access to EPA programs

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          39

-------
while outside organizations  provide  funding to the community.  The  Partners Program will
provide the  opportunity  to leverage EPA's  investment  and  allow  CARE to  reach more
communities than EPA could with increased grant funding alone.

U.S.-Mexico Border:

The U.S.-Mexico Border region hosts a  growing population of more than 14.6 million people,
posing unique drinking water and wastewater infrastructure shortages. In addition, 432 thousand
of the over 14 million  people  in the region live in  1,200 colonias  which are unincorporated
communities characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water.  The Border 2012
framework agreement is intended to protect the environment and public health along the U.S.-
Mexico Border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development.  The key areas
of focus for EPA's Border 2012 Program continue to include: 1) increasing access to drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure; 2) building greenhouse gas (GHG) information capacity and
expanding voluntary energy  efficiency reduction  programs to achieve GHG reduction;  3)
developing institutional capacity to manage  municipal solid waste;  4) piloting projects that
reduce exposure to pesticides;  5) conducting bi-national emergency preparedness training  and
exercises  at  sister  cities; and 6) continuing to test and update the emergency  notification
mechanism between Mexico and the United States. In addition, in FY 2012, EPA also will focus
its efforts  towards the development of the next generation of the Border program.

Preserve  and Restore Land

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 2012, the  Agency  is requesting $1.4 billion  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 2012,  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 sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals
with chronic  diseases, and prioritizes cleanups accordingly.3

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or
Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)  provide 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
 http://wwwborderhealth.org/border_region.php
3 Additional information on these programs can be found at: www. epa. go v/superfund,
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/er cleanup.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.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            40

-------
productive use. Under RCRA, EPA works in partnership with states and tribes to address risks
associated with leaking underground storage tanks and to manage solid and hazardous waste.

In FY 2012, EPA  will work to preserve and restore the nation's land by  ensuring  proper
management of waste and petroleum products, reducing waste generation, increasing recycling
and by strengthening its cleanup programs and oversight of oil and chemical facilities.  These
efforts are integrated with the Agency's efforts to promote sustainable and livable communities.
EPA's land program activities for FY 2012 include seven broad efforts:  1) Integrated Cleanup
Initiative; 2) Land Cleanup  and Revitalization; 3) RCRA  Waste Management and Corrective
Action; 4) Recycling and Waste Minimization; 5) Underground Storage Tanks management; 6)
Oil Spills and Chemical Safety, and 7) Homeland Security.

Integrated Cleanup Initiative:

In an effort to improve the  accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI), a multi-year effort to better use
the most appropriate assessment and cleanup authorities to address a greater  number of sites,
accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back  into productive use while protecting human health
and the  environment.   By bringing to bear the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup
programs, including enforcement, EPA will better leverage the  resources available to address
needs at individual sites.  In  FY 2012, EPA will continue to examine all aspects of the cleanup
programs, identifying key process improvements and enhanced efficiencies.  In addition, in order
to better measure the performance and progress made in  advancing cleanups and addressing
potentially contaminated sites, EPA developed two new  performance measures under ICI that
will support comprehensive management of the cleanup life cycle: Site Assessments (to track all
of the sites for which EPA performs an  assessment of environmental condition) and Remedial
Action Project Completions (to track the progress in completing phases  of  constructing  the
remedy at Superfund sites).  When added to the existing suite of performance measures,  EPA's
measures  now address three critical points  in the cleanup process—starting, advancing,  and
completing site cleanup.

EPA also will implement its Community Engagement Initiative designed to enhance involvement
with local communities and stakeholders so that they may meaningfully participate in decisions
on land cleanup, emergency response, and management of hazardous substances and waste.  The
goals of this initiative are to  ensure transparent and accessible decision-making processes,
deliver information that communities can use to participate meaningfully, and help EPA produce
outcomes that are more responsive to community perspectives and that ensure timely cleanup
decisions.

Land Cleanup and Revitalization:

In addition to  promoting sustainable and livable communities, EPA's  cleanup programs (e.g.,
Superfund Remedial,  Superfund Federal Facilities Response, Superfund  Emergency Response
and Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, Brownfields, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) Cooperative Agreements) and their partners are taking proactive steps to facilitate the
cleanup  and revitalization of contaminated properties.  In FY  2012, the Agency will continue to

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           41

-------
help  communities  clean up  and  revitalize  these once  productive properties  by  removing
contamination, helping limit urban sprawl, fostering ecologic  habitat enhancements, enabling
economic  development,  taking advantage  of existing  infrastructure,  and  maintaining  or
improving quality of life. In addition, EPA will continue to support the RE-Powering America's
Land initiative4 in partnership with the Department of Energy.  These projects advance cleaner
and more cost effective energy technologies, and reduce the environmental impacts  of energy
systems.

RCRA Waste Management and Corrective Action:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to work in partnership with the states to coordinate RCRA
program goals and  direction.  EPA will continue to assist states in permit development, permit
renewals, or other approved controls at facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
EPA will work to meet its annual target of implementing initial approved or updated controls at
100  RCRA hazardous  waste  management  facilities.  In addition to meeting  these  goals, the
program is responsible for the continued maintenance of the regulatory controls at approximately
2,500 facilities in the permitting baseline.5

EPA's RCRA Corrective Action  program will focus on  site investigation, identification of
interim remedies to eliminate exposures to human health or the environment,  and selection of
safe, effective long-term remedies.  Sites will see the results of this funding   in FY 2012 and
beyond,  as the number of sites achieving  the Agency's  environmental indicators  including
control of human exposures and migration of contaminated groundwater increase over time.

Recycling and Waste Minimization:

In FY 2012, EPA will complete this program's redirection to sustainable materials management.
This redirection  is  a significant step  that will allow EPA to  consider the human health  and
environmental  impacts  associated  with the full lifecycle  of materials—from  the  amount  and
toxicity of raw materials extraction, through transportation, processing, manufacturing, and use,
as well as re-use, recycling and disposal.

The EPAct and Underground Storage Tanks:

The EPAct6 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 2012,  EPA will provide assistance to states to help them  meet  their
EPAct responsibilities,  which  include: 1) mandatory  inspections  every three  years for all
underground  storage tanks and enforcement of violations discovered during the inspections; 2)
4 Additional information on this initiative can be found on http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergvland/.

 The permitting baseline universe currently has 2,446 facilities with approximately 10,000 process unit groups.
6 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).
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            42

-------
operator training;  3)  prohibition of delivery  for non-complying facilities7; and 4) secondary
containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers.

Additionally,  there  are  an  unknown  number  of  petroleum Brownfields  sites  that  are
predominately old gas stations that blight the environmental and economic health of surrounding
neighborhoods. In FY 2012, EPA's UST and Brownfields program will continue to jointly focus
attention and resources on the cleanup and reuse of petroleum-contaminated sites.

Oil Spills and Chemical Safety:

The Oil Spill program  helps  protect 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  640,000  non-transportation-related  oil  storage
facilities that EPA regulates through its  Spill  Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
program.  EPA currently conducts approximately 1,100 inspections per year at SPCC-regulated
facilities (representing 0.2 percent of the total universe of 640,000) and 250 FRP inspections and
drills at 6 percent of the FRP facilities.  In FY 2012, as part of the Oil Spill  investments,  the
Agency will broaden and expand its prevention and preparedness activities.

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 and provides technical assistance and support to the U.S. Coast Guard for
coastal  and maritime oil spills.   In  FY 2012, EPA will  continue to  review and revise,  as
appropriate, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, including
Subpart J which regulates the use of dispersants  and  other chemicals as a  tool in oil spill
response.

EPA also works with state and local partners to help protect the public and the environment from
catastrophic releases of hazardous substances  at chemical handling  facilities through the State
and  Local Prevention and Preparedness  program. 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 among others entities. Facilities  are required to update their
RMP at least once every five years and sooner if changes are made at the  facility. EPA currently
conducts over 550 inspections or unannounced exercises per year (approximately 5 percent of
the universe of 13,100 RMP facilities in non-delegated states), including over 140 at high risk
facilities.  In FY 2012, through the Regaining  Ground: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas
investment, the Agency will expand its current activities.

Homeland Security:

EPA's Homeland Security work is  an important component of the  Agency's prevention,
protection, and response activities. EPA will continue to provide Homeland Security emergency
preparedness and  response capability.   In FY 2012, the Agency  requests $38.7 million to:
7 Refer to Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Delivery Prohibition Provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
 August2006, EPA-510-R-06-003, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact Q5.htm#Final.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            43

-------
maintain its capability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve harmful chemical,
biological,  and  radiological  substances;  operate  the  Environmental  Response  Laboratory
Network (ERLN); maximize  the effectiveness of its involvement in national security events
through pre-deployments of assets  such as emergency response personnel and field detection
equipment; maintain the Emergency Management Portal (EMP);  and manage,  collect, and
validate  new  information  for  new  and  existing  weapons of mass  destruction agents  as
decontamination techniques are developed or as other information  emerges from the scientific
community.

Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country

In FY 2012, EPA will assist Federally-recognized tribes in assessing environmental conditions in
Indian country, and will help build their capacity to implement environmental  programs though
the  $8.5 million investment in funding for the Tribal GAP program.  EPA will also strengthen
the  scientific  evidence and  research  supporting  environmental  policies and  decisions on
compliance, pollution prevention, and  environmental stewardship in Indian  country  through
continued collaboration with Agency  program offices as well as through EPA's Tribal  Science
Council.

Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with federally-recognized tribes
on  a  government-to-government basis,  in  recognition  of the  federal  government's  trust
responsibility to federally-recognized  tribes. Under federal environmental  statutes, the  Agency
is responsible for protecting human health and the environment in Indian country. In FY 2012,
EPA's Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA) will continue to lead 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
    through 1) media-specific programs, 2) tribes themselves, or 3) directly by EPA if necessary.

Additionally, in FY  2012, EPA is investing in the multi-media Tribal implementation grant
program which allows the Agency  to build upon the successful capacity-building work  of the
GAP program through full program implementation.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          44

-------
Research

In FY 2012, EPA is  strengthening its planning and delivery of science by implementing  an
integrated research approach that looks at problems systematically instead of individually. EPA
is realigning and integrating the work of its base research programs into four new research
programs (further described in the Goal 1 overview and appendix).  The new Sustainable and
Healthy Communities (SHC) research program will  focus  on the integration, translation and
coordinated communication of research on sustainability, land use, protection and restoration,
human health, ecological risk assessment modeling, and ecosystem services. The SHC research
program will provide innovative and creative management approaches and decision support tools
for communities, regions, states and tribes to protect  and ensure a sustainable balance between
human health and the environment.

Communities are increasingly challenged to improve and protect the health and well-being of
their residents and the ecosystem services upon which they depend,  in the face of increasing
resource demands and changing demographics, economic, social, and climate patterns. Research
will be conducted  in broad areas,  which will support the many  aspects of community health
described above:

I.     Research to Address Specific Community Needs and Improve Our Understanding
       of Community Sustainability:

       As specific research questions are formulated  in the areas of human health, ecosystems
       and ecosystem services, land and waste management, innovative technologies and life
       cycle analysis,  EPA  will begin  conducting  pilot projects that explore  and  address
       problems in an integrated manner by focusing  specifically on 1) an urban community, 2)
       multiple communities in the Gulf of Mexico region, and3) certain high-priority problems
       facing communities across the nation.

II.     Decision Analysis and Support for Conducting Integrated Assessments:

       While communities  often have creative and well-trained government staff, NGOs, and
       citizen groups, they usually do not have the capacity to rapidly develop and/or customize
       advanced decision tools and  supporting data  sets that will enable effective, real-time
       community investment decisions.   This research will focus on developing  practical
       decision support tools and analytic methods that enable communities to effectively use
       information developed by the SHC research  program  and  other programs to support
       community decision making related to environmental sustainability.

III.    Superfund:

       The  SHC  research  program  will  focus  on  innovative  remediation   options  for
       contaminated sediments and the development  of new alternatives  to dredging.   In
       addition, the program will develop solutions to contaminated ground water by evaluating
       subsurface and above-ground alternatives to pump-and-treat, particularly for recalcitrant
       contaminants such as chlorinated solvents  and other  contaminants that do  not dissolve
       easily in water, and will evaluate chemical oxidation and permeable reactive barriers,
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           45

-------
       including those using nanoscale materials.  The SHC research program will continue to
       provide technical support and technology transfer to support ground water modeling
       needs in communities.

IV.    Oil Spill Research:

       In FY 2012, the SHC program will focus on two areas related to oil spill research:  1)
       EPA will develop protocols to revise or test oil  spill control agents or products for listing
       on the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule and other activities deemed
       necessary by EPA's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and 2) the Agency will
       conduct studies on the effectiveness of bioremediation for freshly  spilled oil and aged
       residuals of petroleum-based oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends, and the performance of
       dispersants for deep water applications.

EPA also conducts research  supporting Goal 3 through its  Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program,  which leverages innovative and cutting-edge research  from scientists  in academia
through a competitive and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated with EPA's overall
research  efforts.   The Agency  is enhancing its  investment in areas critical to  support the
Administration's  science  priorities, including  strengthening the future  scientific workforce
through investment in fellowships to  students in pursuit of careers  and  advanced degrees in
environmental science,  technology, engineering, and mathematics.   In FY 2012, EPA will
provide $14 million for STAR Fellowships, including support for an estimated 243 continuing
fellows and 105 new STAR fellows.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           46

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

               Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
       Reduce the risk of chemicals that enter our products, our environment, and our bodies.

       Conserve and  protect natural  resources by  promoting pollution prevention and  the
       adoption  of other  stewardship  practices by  companies,  communities, governmental
       organizations, and individuals.

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

Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals
and Preventing Pollution
Ensure Chemical Safety
Promote Pollution Prevention
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$681,126.8
$618,182.3
$62,944.5
2,692.5
FY 2010
Actuals
$671,424.4
$609,729.0
$61,695.4
2,741.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$681,126.8
$618,182.3
$62,944.5
2,692.5
FY 2012
Pres
Budget
$702,542.3
$642,721.6
$59,820.7
2,706.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$21,415.5
$24,539.3
($3,123.8)
13.9
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          47

-------
                                           Goal 4

                 Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution

   Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source

                                        Introduction

Chemicals have become ubiquitous in our everyday lives and products, because they are used in
the production of everything from our homes and cars to the cell phones we carry and the food
we eat.  Chemicals are often released into  the  environment as  a result of their manufacture,
processing, use,  and disposal.  Research  shows that children are getting steady infusions  of
industrial  chemicals before they  even  are  given solid food8'9'10.   Other vulnerable groups,
including low-income, minority, and  indigenous populations, may also be disproportionately
impacted by and thus particularly at risk from chemical exposure11'12'13.  While  TSCA authorizes
review of new chemicals before they enter the market and provides authority for EPA to mandate
industry to conduct testing, there remain gaps in the available use and exposure data and state of
knowledge on many  widely  used chemicals in commerce.   EPA programs work to  ensure
chemical safety,  including pesticides, and  to manage the chemicals already in the environment
that may have adverse affects.  EPA is also promoting sustainable, lower risk processes and
working with  communities to improve overall environmental quality.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue  to make substantial progress in transitioning from an approach
dominated by voluntary  data submissions by industry, to a more aggressive action-oriented
approach to ensure chemical safety through four areas of focus: 1) using all available authorities
under TSCA to take immediate and lasting  action to eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks
and develop proven safer  alternatives;  2) using regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in
critical exposure data, and increasing transparency and public access to information on TSCA
chemicals; 3)  using data from all available  sources to conduct detailed chemical risk assessments
on priority chemicals to inform the need for and support development and implementation of risk
management actions; and 4) prevent introduction  of unsafe new chemicals into commerce.

EPA's Pesticide Licensing program screens new pesticides before they  reach the market and
ensures that pesticides already in commerce are safe when used in accordance with the label.  As
directed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and  the Food  Quality  Protection Act (FQPA), EPA is
8 The Disproportionate Impact of Environmental Health Threats on Children of Color
(http://vosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/79a3n3c301688828525770c0063b277iOpenD
ocumenfl
9 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
10 Guide to Considering Children's Health When Developing EPA Actions: Implementing Executive Order 13045 and EPA's
Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children
(http://vosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/ADPguide.htm/SFile/EPA ADP Guide 508.pdf)
1' Holistic Risk-based Environmental Decision Making: a Native Perspective
(http://www.ncbi.nhn.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241171)
12 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations
13 Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action
(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ei/resources/policv/considering-ei-in-rulemaking-guide-07-2010.pdf)
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                             48

-------
responsible for registering pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be
exposed to pesticides,  children,  and other sensitive populations.   EPA also reviews  potential
impacts on the environment, with particular attention to endangered species.

In 1990, the Pollution Prevention Act established preventing pollution before it is generated as
national environmental policy.  EPA is enhancing cross-cutting efforts to advance sustainable
practices, safer chemicals and sustainable lower risk processes and practices, and safer products.
The combined effect of community level actions, geographically targeted investments,  attention
to chemicals, and concern for ecosystems, implemented through the lens of science, transparency
and law, will bring real improvements and protections.

Achieving  an environmentally  sustainable future  demands  that  EPA make  smarter, faster
decisions guided by  sound science on  environmental problems  facing the  country today.  It is
also  crucial  to  anticipate tomorrow's problems  and  identify approaches to  better inform
environmentally sustainable behavior.   The EPA Science Advisory Board has recognized14 that
the improved  understanding  of  today's  environmental  problems  requires  an  integrative,
transdisciplinary approach that considers multi-media, integrated, and non-traditional approaches
to achieve more effective and efficient solutions. EPA's research request reflects the necessity to
increase synergies  among  programs using systems thinking and catalytic innovation in order to
meet the problems  of the 21st century.

                            Major FY 2012 Investment Areas

Enhancing Chemical Safety

EPA will invest an additional $16 million and 5.5 FTE to continue implementing its enhanced
chemical management strategy to make long-overdue progress in ensuring the safety of existing
chemicals:   1) obtaining, managing and making public chemical information; 2) screening and
assessing chemical risks; and 3) managing chemical risks.  In FY 2012, EPA's approach will be
centered on  immediate and lasting actions to identify and mitigate  unreasonable chemical risks
and develop proven safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals.

The FY 2012 investment  will provide for action needed to 1) increase the Agency's pace in
obtaining and making public TSCA chemical health and safety and other information; 2) conduct
detailed  chemical risk  assessments   on  priority  chemicals  and  accelerating progress in
characterizing the hazards posed by HPV chemicals 3) undertake appropriate risk management
actions on chemicals  identified as posing significant human health or environmental risks.

                     Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions

•  Funding reductions reflect expected program efficiencies and reprioritization of targeted
   activities.  Specifically, EPA will  reduce support  for non-regulatory activities  including
   pollinator protection, urban pest management and the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
   Program. Funding reductions may also delay development and implementation of some risk
   assessment policies.
14 http://vosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/E989ECFC125966428525775B0047BElA/SFile/EP A-SAB-10-010-unsigned.pdf
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           49

-------
                                   FY 2012 Activities
Toxics Programs
FY 2012  represents  a crucial stage  in EPA's approach  for ensuring chemical safety.  The
program has attained its 'zero tolerance' goal in preventing introduction of unsafe new chemicals
into  commerce but many existing ('pre-TSCA') chemicals already  in commerce  remain un-
assessed.  The Existing  Chemicals can be  split into three  major component activities:  1)
strengthening  chemical information collection,  management,  and transparency ($14.7M);  2)
Screening and Assessing Chemical Risks ($15.6M); and 3) Reducing Chemical Risks ($26.4M).

Also in FY 2012, EPA will continue to prevent the  entry of new chemicals into the US market
which pose unreasonable  risks to human health or the environment.  The major activity of the
New Chemicals program ($14.3M) is PMN review and  management,  which  addresses the
potential   risks from  approximately  1,100 chemicals,  products of biotechnology and  new
chemical nanoscale materials received annually prior to their entry into the US marketplace.

In FY 2012,  the Agency will continue to implement the Chemicals Risk Management program to
further eliminate risks from high-risk "legacy" chemicals, such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) and mercury.   The Lead program will continue efforts to further reduce childhood blood
lead incidence, and will continue implementing the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP)
Rule though increased outreach efforts and targeted  activities to support renovator certifications.
EPA will allocate $35.3 million to undertaking existing chemical risk management actions in FY
2012.

                              Children's Risk
                 Blood Lead Levels for Children aged  1-5
              30%


              25%


              20%


              15%


              10%


               5%


               0%
>10 ug/dL
Elevated Lead
Levels
>5 ug/dL
New Concern Lead
Levels
>5 ug/dL
TARGET Lead Levels
For near Future
Pesticides
Programs
                             C?>"    oft"
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          50

-------
A key component of chemical safety and to protecting the health of people, communities, and
ecosystems, is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the pesticides on which
our society and economy depend. EPA will continue to manage a comprehensive pesticide risk
reduction program through science-based registration  and reevaluation  processes, a worker
safety program,  and support for integrated pest management.   The pesticide review processes
will  continue  to increasingly focus  on improving pesticide registrations  compliance with the
Endangered Species Act and achieve broader Agency objectives for water quality protection.

EPA will continue to place emphasis on the protection of potentially  sensitive groups, such as
children, by reducing exposures from pesticides used in and around homes, schools, and other
public areas.  In addition, the Agency worker protection,  certification, and training regulations
will  encourage safe application practices.  Together, these programs minimize  exposure  to
pesticides, maintain a  safe and affordable  food supply, address public health  issues, and
minimize property damage that can occur from  insects and pests.  As part of the Agency's
review  of non-regulatory efforts,  the  Strategic  Agriculture Initiative  program will shift  its
emphasis to the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, providing a more focused effort in
IPM to address  a  wide range of agricultural risk issues in food  safety as well as minimizing
exposure from pesticide drift.

Chemical and biological pesticides  help  meet national and global demands for food.   They
provide effective pest control for homes, schools, gardens, highways, utility lines, hospitals, and
drinking water treatment facilities  and control animal vectors of disease.  Many  regulatory
actions involve reduced risk pesticides which, once registered,  will result in increased societal
benefits. In addition to collecting a total of $82 million in anticipated fee-funded activities in FY
2012, $32 million which can be obligated EPA is funding $128.7 million in Pesticides Licensing
programs.

Pollution Prevention

EPA  will continue to promote  innovation through  environmental  stewardship  strategies that
promote economic revitalization. EPA will draw on innovative and  cross media  strategies to
focus analysis and coordination across the Agency, with States, and with other Federal agencies.

In FY  2012, EPA's  Pollution Prevention  (P2) programs  will  target  technical assistance,
information and supporting assessments to encourage the use of greener chemicals, technologies,
processes,  and products through programs with  proven  records of success such as:   Green
Suppliers Network, Regional  Grants, Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, Partnership for
Sustainable Healthcare,  Green Chemistry and Green Engineering.   In  addition, EPA's  P2
programs will continue to support the new Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) partnership
among federal agencies, local governments and manufacturers to promote energy efficiency, job
creation and environmental improvement.

Through these efforts, EPA will encourage government and business to adopt source reduction
practices that can help to prevent pollution and avoid potential adverse health and environmental
impacts. P2 grants to states and tribes provide support for technical assistance, education, and
outreach to assist  businesses.  Work under these programs also supports  the energy reduction

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            51

-------
goals under E.G. 13514. In FY 2012, the total funding for P2 programs is $20.7 million and 72.7
FTE.

International Affairs

Environmental pollution  and contamination often extend well beyond a country's individual
borders.  In the face of  shared environmental challenges, such as global climate change and
improving children's  environmental health outcomes,  cooperation with global  partners can
catalyze even greater progress toward protecting our domestic environment. By partnering with
and assisting other nations to improve their environmental governance, EPA also  helps protect
the U.S.  from pollution  originating outside our borders from reaching our citizens.  These
collaborative efforts are the key to  sustaining  and enhancing progress, both domestically and
internationally.

EPA's international priorities  include:  building  strong  environmental  institutions  and legal
structures; improving access to clean water; improving urban air quality; limiting global  GHG
emissions and  other climate-forcing  pollutants, reducing exposure to  toxic chemicals, and
reducing hazardous waste and improve waste management.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The  National Environmental Policy  Act (NEPA) requires Federal  agencies to prepare
environmental impact statements (EISs) for actions that have the potential to cause significant
environmental effects,  and develop  appropriate plans to  mitigate or eliminate those impacts.
EPA's unique role in this process is  reviewing and commenting on all Federal EISs and making
the comments available to the public. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with  other Federal
agencies to streamline and to improve their NEPA processes. Work also will focus on a number
of key areas such as review and comment on mining 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  (including the expansion  in  Guam), flood  control  and port
development, and management of national forests and public lands.  EPA also will conduct work
pursuant to the Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan.

Research

In FY 2012, EPA is strengthening  its planning and  delivery of science by  implementing an
integrated research approach that looks at problems systematically instead of individually. This
approach will create synergy and yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are
more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas.  EPA is realigning and integrating
the work of its base research programs into four new research programs (further described in the
Goal 1 overview and appendix).

The  new Chemical Safety and Sustainability (CSS) Program will develop enhanced chemical
screening  and testing  approaches for improving context-relevant  chemical  assessment and
management. New computational, physico-chemical,  and biological and exposure science tools

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           52

-------
promise  to transform  the way risks of chemical products  are evaluated.  Development  and
validation will proceed on broadly applicable, predictive, high-throughput tools to be combined
with existing test methods, integrating toxicity and exposure pathways in the context of the life
cycle of the chemical.  In FY 2012 EPA will begin a multi-year transition from the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP)  to  validate  and more efficiently use  computational
toxicology methods and high throughput screens that will allow the Agency to more quickly and
cost-effectively  assess potential  chemical  toxicity.   As  reflected  in Figure V,  testing  300
chemicals with computational toxicology methods costs on average about $20,000 per chemical
compared to more traditional approaches that can cost more than $6 million per chemical. In FY
2012, EPA will begin to evaluate endocrine-relevant ToxCast assays.
                TRANSFORM ING the EFFECTIVENESS
                    of Chemical Safety Research
         Traditional Toxicology
      Computational Toxicology
            .
     Sir

                             •

             -•
                             I
              !     .
                                            ::•-• ;-:  -i    *J -_._    '&•
                                               •*•*>••••?*;* -|W";'' ''-•
        I'l "
                              •

                     £• :--"

      •= ""*?•';' '::'i;-'-f '
             -•jx-^.i  e|        '.••
    • ..•-•--••—      ,       to -
              ;   i .    ii,
     ...»
                   COMPTOX:
Increases results
Decreases costs
Figure V: EPA research
is developing
computational
toxicology tools that are
faster, more efficient,
and have the capacity to
test thousands of
chemicals at a fraction
of the cost for traditional
animal-based testing
(e.g., $2 billion versus
$6 million for 300
chemicals). This
innovative research is
critical to catalyzing
sustainable solutions
that inform decisions on
chemical safety.
CSS will also  contribute to the  Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program  by
providing decision makers in individual localities and communities with research and support on
contaminants of highest priority and concern to them. Better and more integrated approaches to
chemical testing and assessment also will lead to  better air toxics and drinking water-related
regional and local decision making.  Under this newly consolidated research program, EPA will
continue to support the scientific foundation for addressing the risks of exposure to chemicals in
humans and wildlife. Resources requested total $95.7 million and 292.7 FTE.

In FY2012, the Agency's Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program will continue to
develop assessments including Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) of criteria air pollutants,
Integrated  Risk Information  Systems (IRIS)  Assessments of  high priority chemicals, and
Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV).  The program will release draft ISAs  for
ozone and lead  for Clean Air Science Advisory Committee review and public comment.  The
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            53

-------
program will  strive to post  numerous  completed  human health assessments (e.g.  dioxin,
methanol, cumulative phthalate assessment, benzo-a-pyrene, Libby asbestos cancer assessment,
and PCB noncancer assessment) in IRIS.

EPA also conducts research supporting Goal 4 through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program,  which leverages  innovative and  cutting-edge research  from scientists in  academia
through a competitive  and peer-reviewed grant process that is integrated with EPA's overall
research efforts. The Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) will continue to enhance
the nation's preparedness, response, and  recovery  capabilities  for homeland security incidents
and other hazards.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           54

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification

                            Enforcing Environmental Laws
Protect human health and the  environment through vigorous and targeted civil and  criminal
enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:

    •  Pursue vigorous civil and  criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air,
      and chemical  hazards  in communities.   Assure  strong,  consistent, and effective
      enforcement of federal environmental laws nationwide.
                              GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
                                    Budget Authority
                                   Full-time Equivalents
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Enforcing Environmental Laws
Enforce Environmental Laws
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$807,902.7
$807,902.7
4,003.2
FY 2010
Actuals
$795,703.1
$795,703.1
3,834.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$807,902.7
$807,902.7
4,003.2
FY 2012
Pres
Budget
$829,831.4
$829,831.4
3,914.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$21,928.7
$21,928.7
-88.9
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          55

-------
                                         GoalS

                             Enforcing Environmental Laws

Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal
enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws.

                                      Introduction

EPA's  civil  and criminal enforcement programs  perform  the core function of  assuring
compliance with our nation's environmental laws.  A strong and effective enforcement program
is  essential to maintain respect for the rule of law and to realize the promise of our federal
statutes to protect our environment and the public health of our citizens.

On January  18, 2011, President  Obama  issued a "Presidential Memoranda  - Regulatory
Compliance" which reaffirms the importance of effective  enforcement and compliance in
regulations.  In part, it states "Sound regulatory enforcement promotes the welfare of Americans
in  many ways, by increasing public safety, improving working  conditions, and protecting the air
we breathe and the  water we  drink.  Consistent regulatory enforcement also levels the playing
field among regulated entities, ensuring that those that fail to comply with the law do not have an
unfair advantage over their law-abiding competitors."

In  FY 2012, EPA will  maintain the strength of its core enforcement  program and begin a new
focus on harnessing the tools of 21st century technology to make our enforcement program more
efficient and more effective for the future.  We will  also continue to  address special challenges
such as the litigation resulting  from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Our current approach,  rooted  largely in  the traditional inspection and enforcement model, has
produced  substantial public  health and  environmental  benefits.  However, use of modern
technology and methods can  reduce the costs  of monitoring and ensuring compliance both to
EPA and  businesses,  and  enable  us to do a more effective job.   Today,  we rely almost
exclusively on time-consuming and expensive  pollution tests that make it hard to quickly find
and investigate the  worst air, waste and water pollution, and for communities to know  about
pollution that affects them.  It is increasingly difficult to ensure compliance using outdated tools
and old approaches, as the universe of regulated pollution sources is  outstripping the resources
available to state and federal inspectors to find and correct non-compliance.

EPA and its state partners simply cannot conduct enough inspections to ensure that the health
and environmental  benefits of laws passed by Congress are realized and catastrophes are
avoided.  The BP Deepwater  Horizon oil spill and the Enbridge  pipeline oil  spill in Marshall,
Michigan have generated a greater awareness of the growing  need for the country to  catch up
when it comes to  finding  and correcting non-compliance to prevent damage and economic
hardships. Yet the oil spill crises are just one piece of the puzzle.  Today, states are adding more
waters to the Clean Water Act's  list of impaired waters,  while at the same time indicating that
resource constraints are pushing them to seriously consider returning control  of environmental
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           56

-------
protection programs to EPA.   These and other issues  argue  for new approaches to ensuring
compliance to enable the Agency to become more effective and efficient.

A recent snapshot (see graph on following page) shows us that nationally reported compliance
data - while it  does not paint a complete picture - strongly indicates that violations are likely
widespread.   For example, non-compliance with the Clean  Water Act's  National  Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits in many places averages 60 percent - leading to concerns
about health impacts in those places.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           57

-------
                           Non-Compliance Information Across Sectors
                                                                                 15
                                Clean
                                Wotei Act
                                ICWAI
               Resource
               Conservation
               and Recovery
               Act IRCRA)
        *Statistically
           Valid
   **New Source
      Review
(RSR)/Prevention of
    Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
**Mining and
   Mineral
 Processing
A= Combined Sewer Municipalities    H= Oil & Gas            Q= Phosphoric Acid
B=Ethylene Oxide Manufacturers      1= Misc. Metal Parts       P= Mines
C= Organic Chemical Manufacturing   J= Fabric Coating         Q= Other Mineral Processing
D= Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) K= Acid Manufacturing    R= RCRATreatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
E= Flares                            L= Cement Manufacturing S= Financial Assurance
F= LDAR Miscellaneous              M= Glass Manufacturing  T= Majors
G= Petroleum Refining                N= Coal Fired Boilers     U= Minors
15*Non-compliance rates based on data gathered during inspections/evaluations at a statistically valid sample of the regulated
universe and defined as having a minimum of one violation with any given requirement examined during the
inspection/evaluation.
"Non-compliance rates are based on violations detected at facilities in these sectors during inspections and evaluations; not
statistically valid sample, but based on completed evaluations for 61% of the Air Toxic targeted universe (LDAR, Flares, LDAR
Misc., Petroleum Refining, Oil and Gas, Misc. Metal Parts and Fabric coating), 40% of the targeted universe for NSR/PSD (Acid
Manufacturing, Cement Manufacturing, Glass Manufacturing), and 14% of the targeted universe for Mining and Mineral
Processing (Phosphoric Acid, Other Mineral Processing, Mines).
* "Non-compliance rates are based on a combination of facility self-reported Discharge Monitoring Reports. (DMRs) and
violations detected at facilities during inspections.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                                      58

-------
                               Major FY 2012 Investment Areas

In FY  2012,  the Agency's Regaining  Ground: Increasing Compliance in  Critical Areas
investment will allow EPA to begin to move toward implementing a more efficient and effective
enforcement program that uses 21st century e-reporting and monitoring tools, in combination
with market-based approaches.  Investments in new technology offer the opportunity to save the
federal  government,  states,  and American  business valuable resources as overall  compliance
costs are reduced.  EPA will also invest in more advanced monitoring tools, allowing EPA and
its state partners to more easily identify, investigate and address the worst violations that affect
our communities.  The Agency requests $14.2 million  and 4.0 FTE under Goal  5 for this
investment.

EPA will begin  to  review compliance  reporting requirements in existing rules to identify
opportunities for conversion to a national  electronic reporting format;  and examine new rules to
incorporate electronic reporting elements  during rule development. Eliminating existing paper
based reporting systems will be an overarching goal of this initiative.  As part of the process of
developing new rules, EPA will identify  opportunities  to require objective,  self-monitoring
and/or  self-certification.   EPA will  upgrade  key  data  systems to allow  for third-party
certification, public accountability, advanced monitoring  and electronic reporting requirements
to improve compliance.

EPA will begin enhancing its data systems to help the Agency and its regulatory partners better
determine the compliance status of facilities, focus our resources to efficiently address the most
serious  non-compliance, and substantially reduce the costs of collecting, sharing, and analyzing
compliance information.

With this investment, EPA will use a market based approach to develop open platform "e-file"
data exchange standards, modeled after that used by the  IRS to collect tax data, which would
unleash the expertise of the  private sector marketplace to  replace the  largely paper-based
reporting systems that have evolved over  the past thirty years.  Further, in those programs where
EPA has already built electronic reporting tools, the private sector may enhance these tools to
better support industry needs, enabling EPA to largely eliminate the need to continue to fund the
operation and maintenance of these tools.

With the requested resources, EPA also will  begin to invest in modern monitoring technology
such as portable  emission detectors, thermal  imaging  cameras, flow  meters, and  remote
(fenceline) monitoring equipment to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our compliance
monitoring program.  Our investment includes an increase for monitoring equipment, as well as
funding to train staff on the use of remote sensing techniques.   Providing modern monitoring
technology for  EPA  inspectors will enable field staff to perform more efficient and effective
compliance verification.  Modern monitoring equipment will increase EPA's ability to detect
violations across all programs and focus our efforts on the most significant problems.

EPA's response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill will continue in FY 2012 as the Agency
provides support for the U.S.  Department of Justice's civil action and criminal  investigations
against  BP, Anadarko, Transocean,  and other responsible parties.  The Department of Justice

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           59

-------
filed its civil complaint  on behalf of EPA, the Coast Guard, and other federal  plaintiffs in
December 2010, and EPA will be actively providing litigation support, discovery management,
and response to court orders throughout FY 2012.  Currently, EPA resources are being used to
support Department of Justice's on-going civil investigations.

                     Major FY 2012 Disinvestments and Reductions

•  Eliminating funding for homeland security enforcement efforts because EPA will not need to
   maintain separate capacity to support environmental criminal investigations and training for
   terrorism-related investigations.  This reduction  reflects the  increased capacity of other
   agencies to handle the environmental forensics work associated with security incidents.

•  Reducing funding for Enforcement  Training, relying more on web-based  tools to more
   efficiently deliver compliance assistance and training, reducing staff intensive activities.

•  Reducing funding for Superfund Enforcement that could have been used for PRP searches
   and settlement activity.

•  Reducing funding to the Department of Justice for CERCLA case support.

•  Reducing funding for Criminal Enforcement that  could have been used  for investigative
   support for criminal cases.

                                     Priority Goal

EPA has established a Priority Goal to focus and highlight progress made through  enforcement
actions to clean up the nation's polluted waters.  The Priority Goal is:

   Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities. EPA will
   take actions over the next two years to improve water quality.

   Improve Water Quality: Federal Clean Water Enforcement

   •   Increase pollutant reducing  enforcement actions in waters that don't meet water  quality
       standards, and post results and analysis on the web.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals
as necessary and appropriate.

FY 2012 Activities

While making the reforms described above to improve our core business practices for monitoring
and reporting,  the  Agency remains committed to implementing a strong  enforcement  and
compliance  program  focused on  identifying  and reducing  non-compliance  problems  and
deterring future violations.  In order to meet these goals,  the program employs an integrated,
common-sense approach to problem-solving  and decision-making.  An appropriate mix  of data

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           60

-------
collection and analysis, compliance monitoring, assistance and incentives, civil and criminal
enforcement  efforts  and   innovative  problem-solving  approaches  addresses  significant
environmental issues and achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes.  As discussed above,
enhancing these efforts through  a  new approach that relies on 21st century reporting and
monitoring tools will be the focus  of our efforts in FY  2012 and  will be used to advance
implementation of the Administrator's priorities as well as our core program work.  Including the
new FY 2012 investment, $375.7  million and 2,132.7 FTE will support compliance monitoring
and civil and criminal enforcement activities.

Focus Areas:

•  Protecting Air  Quality:  EPA will focus on the largest sources of air pollution, including
   coal-fired power plants  and the  cement, acid and glass sectors, to  improve air quality.
   Enforcement to cut toxic air pollution in  communities improves the health of communities,
   particularly those overburdened by pollution.

   The Energy  Independence  and  Security  Act (EISA)  of 2007 requires increased  use  of
   renewable fuels.  EPA's Civil Enforcement program  will help the regulated community
   understand their statutory obligations under the EISA; inspect renewable  fuel production
   facilities;  monitor compliance with renewable fuel requirements;  monitor and enforce the
   credit trading program;  and, undertake administrative and judicial enforcement actions, as
   appropriate.

•  Protecting America's Waters:  EPA,  working with permitting authorities,  is revamping
   compliance  and enforcement  approaches to make progress on the most important water
   pollution problems.  This work includes getting raw sewage out of water, cutting pollution
   from animal waste and reducing pollution from stormwater runoff.  These efforts will help to
   clean up  great waters  like the  Chesapeake  Bay and will focus on revitalizing  urban
   communities by protecting and restoring urban waters.  Enforcement  will also support the
   goal of assuring clean drinking water for all communities, including small systems and in
   Indian country.

•  Cleaning  Up Our Communities:  EPA protects communities by  ensuring that responsible
   parties  conduct cleanups,  saving federal dollars for sites where there are no viable
   contributing parties.  Ensuring that these  parties clean up the sites ultimately reduces direct
   human exposure to hazardous pollutants and contaminants,  provides for long-term  human
   health protection, and ultimately makes contaminated properties available for reuse.

   EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action enforcement
   program supports the goal  set by the Agency and its state partners of attaining remedy
   construction at  95 percent of 3,747 RCRA facilities by the year 2020.  In 2010, EPA issued
   the "National Enforcement  Strategy  for  Corrective Action" to promote and  communicate
   nationally consistent enforcement and compliance assurance principles, practices, and tools
   to help achieve this goal. In FY 2012, EPA will continue targeted enforcement under the
   Strategy and will work with its state partners to  assess the contribution of enforcement in
   achieving the 2020 goal.

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           61

-------
•  Ensuring the Safely of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution:  Strengthening chemical safety
   enforcement and reducing exposure to pesticides  will improve the health of Americans.
   Enforcement reduces direct human exposures to toxic chemicals and pesticides and supports
   long-term human health protection.

Compliance Monitoring

EPA'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, as well as  to determine whether conditions presenting imminent and
substantial endangerment exist.  In FY 2012, EPA's compliance monitoring activities will be
both environmental media- and sector-based.  EPA's media-based inspections complement those
performed by states and tribes, and are a key part of our strategy for meeting the long-term and
annual goals established  for the air, water,  pesticides, toxic substances and hazardous waste
programs.

Compliance  monitoring  includes EPA's  management and  use of data systems  to  run its
compliance  and enforcement  programs under the  various statutes and  programs that EPA
enforces.  In FY 2012, the  Agency  will begin the process  of  enhancing its data  systems to
support electronic  reporting,  providing more comprehensive, accessible data to the  public and
improving integration of environmental  information with health data and other pertinent data
sources from other federal agencies and private entities. The Agency will continue its multi-year
project to modernize its national  enforcement and compliance data system, the Integrated
Compliance  Information  System (ICIS), which supports both compliance  monitoring and civil
enforcement.

Civil Enforcement

The  Civil Enforcement program's  overarching goal is to assure compliance with the nation's
environmental laws and regulations in order to protect human health and the environment.  The
program  collaborates with  the Department of  Justice,  states,  local  agencies  and  Tribal
governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental  laws and regulations.
The program seeks to protect public health and the environment and ensure a level playing field
by strengthening our partnership with our co-implementers in the states, encouraging regulated
entities to rapidly correct their own violations, ensuring that violators do not realize an economic
benefit from noncompliance and pursuing enforcement 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 2010,  EPA achieved commitments
to invest more than $12 billion in future pollution controls and pollution reduction commitments
totaling approximately 1.5 billion pounds.

In FY 2012, EPA will  continue to target implementation of  the National Compliance and
Enforcement Initiatives established  for FY 2011-2013.   These  national initiatives  address
problems that remain complex and  challenging,  including Clean Water Act  "wet weather"

Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                          62

-------
discharges, violations of the Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration requirements and Air Toxics regulations, RCRA violations at mineral processing
facilities, and multi-media problems resulting from energy extraction activities. Information on
initiatives, regulatory requirements, enforcement alerts and EPA results will be made available to
the public  and the regulated community through web-based sites.   The Civil Enforcement
program also will support the Environmental Justice program and the Administrator's priority to
address pollution impacting vulnerable populations.  The Civil Enforcement program will focus
actions on facilities 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. In addition, the Civil Enforcement program will help to implement the
President's directive to develop and implement  a compliance  and  enforcement strategy for the
Chesapeake Bay, providing  strong oversight to ensure existing regulations are complied with
consistently and in a timely manner.

Criminal Enforcement

Criminal Enforcement  underlies our  commitment to pursuing  the most  serious  pollution
violations.    EPA's  Criminal  Enforcement  program   investigates  and  helps  prosecute
environmental violations that seriously  threaten  public health and the environment and 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.
Bringing criminal  cases sends  a strong  deterrence message  to potential  violators,  enhances
aggregate compliance with laws and regulations and protects our communities.

The program has completed its three-year hiring  strategy, raising  the number of special agents to
200, and will use this capacity to address complex environmental  cases in FY 2012.  In FY 2012,
the Criminal Enforcement program will expand its identification  and investigation of cases with
significant environmental, human health and deterrence impact while balancing its overall case
load across all pollution statutes.  EPA's Criminal Enforcement program  will focus on cases
across all media that involve serious  harm or injury; hazardous  or toxic releases;  ongoing,
repetitive, or multiple releases;  serious documented exposure  to pollutants; and violators with
significant repeat or chronic noncompliance or prior criminal conviction.

Superfund Enforcement

EPA's Superfund  Enforcement  program protects  communities by ensuring that responsible
parties conduct  cleanups,  preserving  Federal  dollars for sites  where there  are  no viable
contributing parties.   Superfund  Enforcement ensures  prompt   site  cleanup and uses  an
"enforcement first" approach that maximizes the participation  of liable and viable parties in
performing and paying for cleanups in both the remedial and removal programs. The Superfund
Enforcement program  includes  nationally  significant  or  precedential  civil,  judicial  and
administrative site remediation cases.   The  program   also  provides  legal  and  technical
enforcement support on Superfund Enforcement actions and emerging issues.  The Superfund
Enforcement program also develops waste cleanup  enforcement  policies and provides guidance
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           63

-------
and tools that clarify potential environmental cleanup liability, with specific attention to the reuse
and revitalization of contaminated properties, including Brownfields properties.

Enforcement authorities play a unique role under the Superfund  program.   The authorities are
used to ensure that responsible parties conduct a majority of the cleanup actions and reimburse
the federal  government  for  cleanups financed by Federal  resources.  In  tandem with  this
approach, various reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce transaction costs,
promote economic development and make sites available for appropriate reuse.16  Ensuring that
these parties cleanup sites ultimately reduces direct human exposures to hazardous pollutants and
contaminants, provides  for  long-term human  health  protections  and makes  contaminated
properties available for reuse.

The  Department  of  Justice  supports EPA's  Superfund  Enforcement   program  through
negotiations and judicial actions to compel Potentially Responsible Parties  (PRP) cleanup and
litigation to recover Trust Fund monies.   In FY 2010, the Superfund Enforcement program
secured private party commitments that exceeded  $1.6 billion.  Of this amount, PRPs have
committed to future response work with an estimated value of approximately $1.4 billion; PRPs
have agreed to reimburse the Agency for $150 million in past costs; and PRPs have been billed
by the EPA for approximately $82 million in oversight costs.  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.

In FY 2012, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and
removal agreements  at  contaminated  properties to address  contamination impacting  local
communities. When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover the
associated cleanup costs from the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).  If future work remains
at a  site,  recovered funds  could be placed in a site-specific special account pursuant  to the
agreement. Special accounts are sub-accounts within EPA's Superfund Trust Fund. The Agency
will continue its efforts to establish special accounts and to use  and track those funds efficiently
to facilitate and  advance cleanups.  As of the  end of FY 2010,  1,023  site-specific  special
accounts were established and over $3.7 billion were deposited into special accounts (including
earned interest).  EPA has obligated and dispersed approximately $1.85 billion  from  special
accounts to finance site response actions and has developed multi-year plans to use the remaining
funds  as  expeditiously as possible.   These  funds  will  be used to  conduct many different
CERCLA response actions, including, but not limited to, investigations to determine the  extent
of contamination and appropriate remedy  required, construction of  the remedy, enforcement
activities, and post-construction monitoring.

During FY 2012,  the Agency will continue  to refine the cost documentation process to gain
further efficiencies; provide DOJ case support for Superfund sites;  and calculate indirect cost and
annual 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 as stipulated in the terms of settlement agreements.
16 For more information regarding EPA's enforcement program and its various components, please refer to
 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                            64

-------
Partnering with States, Tribes and Communities

EPA shares accountability for environmental and human health protection with states and tribes.
Most  states have  been  delegated the  legal  responsibility  for  implementing  environmental
programs. We work together to target the most important pollution violations and ensure that
companies that meet their obligations and are responsible neighbors are not put at a competitive
disadvantage.   EPA also has  a responsibility to oversee  state and Tribal implementation  of
federal laws to ensure that the same level of protection for the environment and the public
applies across the country.

Enforcement  promotes environmental justice by equitably targeting pollution  problems that
affect  low  income,  minority, and/or  tribal  communities.     Ensuring  compliance with
environmental  laws is  particularly  important in  communities  that are exposed  to greater
environmental health risks.  EPA fosters community involvement by making information about
compliance and government action available to the public.  Increased transparency is also  an
effective tool for improving compliance. By  making information on violations  both available
and understandable, EPA empowers citizens to demand better compliance.
Enacted Budget represents our Operating Plan.
                                           65

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Science and Technology

Resource Summary Table	68
Program Projects in S&T	68
Program Area: Clean Air and Climate	72
   Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	73
   Climate Protection Program	77
   Federal Support for Air Quality Management	81
   Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	84
   Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification	86
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation	96
   Indoor Air: Radon Program	97
   Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	99
   Radiation: Protection	101
   Radiation: Response Preparedness	103
Program Area: Enforcement	105
   Forensics Support	106
Program Area: Homeland Security	108
   Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	109
   Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	114
   Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	122
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	124
   IT / Data Management	125
Program Area: Operations and Administration	128
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	129
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing	133
   Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk	134
   Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk	137
   Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability	141
Program Area: Research: Air, Climate and Energy	144
   Research: Air, Climate and Energy	145
Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources	154
                                         66

-------
   Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources	155
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability	162
   Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability	163
   Human Health Risk Assessment	177
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities	183
   Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities	184
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection	192
   Drinking Water Programs	193
Program Area: Clean Air	197
   Research: Clean Air	198
   Research: Global Change	202
Program Area: Clean Water	205
   Research: Drinking Water	206
   Research: Water Quality	210
Program Area: Human Health and Ecosystems	213
   Research: Computational Toxicology	214
   Research: Endocrine Disrupter	217
   Research: Fellowships	220
   Research: Human Health and Ecosystems	223
Program Area: Land Protection	228
   Research: Land Protection and Restoration	229
Program Area: Research: Sustainability	232
   Research: Sustainability	233
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention	237
   Research: Pesticides and Toxics	238
                                         67

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                      APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology
                              Resource Summary Table
                                (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted

$848,049.0
2,442.5
FY2010
Actuals

$817,677.7
2,441.7
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$846,049.0
2,442.5
FY2012
Pres Budget

$825,596.0
2,471.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($22,453.0)
28.7
                        Bill Language:  Science and Technology

For science and technology, including research and development activities, which shall include
research and development activities  under the  Comprehensive Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and
related costs and travel expenses; procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; and other
operating expenses in support of research and development, $825,596,000, to remain available
until September 30,2013. Note.—A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted
at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing
resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect  the annualized
level provided by the continuing resolution.

                              Program Projects in S&T
                                (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Clean Air and Climate
Clean Air Allowance Trading
Programs
Climate Protection Program
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics
Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards
and Certification
Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
FY 2010
Enacted

$9,963.0
$19,797.0
$11,443.0
$2,398.0
$91,782.0
$135,383.0

$453.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$9,329.3
$20,126.8
$12,480.6
$2,381.7
$87,648.2
$131,966.6

$485.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$9,963.0
$19,797.0
$11,443.0
$2,398.0
$91,782.0
$135,383.0

$453.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget

$9,797.0
$16,345.0
$7,650.0
$0.0
$100,578.0
$134,370.0

$210.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

($166.0)
($3,452.0)
($3,793.0)
($2,398.0)
$8,796.0
($1,013.0)

($243.0)
                                         68

-------
Program Project
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
Enforcement
Forensics Support
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 Building
Homeland Security:
Preparedness, Response,
and Recovery (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security:
Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of
EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
FY 2010
Enacted
$762.0
$2,095.0
$4,176.0
$7,486.0

$15,351.0


$18,576.0
$4,450.0
$23,026.0

$24,857.0
$499.0
$1,996.0
$14,305.0
$41,657.0
$593.0
$65,276.0

$4,385.0


$33,947.0
$19,177.0
$10,260.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$808.0
$1,962.1
$4,242.7
$7,498.4

$15,245.3


$13,953.7
$7,001.2
$20,954.9

$20,448.7
$438.3
$1,225.2
$15,585.7
$37,697.9
$593.0
$59,245.8

$4,054.0


$34,102.2
$21,934.3
$9,218.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$762.0
$2,095.0
$4,176.0
$7,486.0

$15,351.0


$18,576.0
$4,450.0
$23,026.0

$24,857.0
$499.0
$1,996.0
$14,305.0
$41,657.0
$593.0
$65,276.0

$4,385.0


$33,947.0
$19,177.0
$10,260.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$370.0
$2,096.0
$4,082.0
$6,758.0

$15,326.0


$8,632.0
$2,747.0
$11,379.0

$17,382.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,696.0
$30,078.0
$579.0
$42,036.0

$4,108.0


$35,661.0
$20,195.0
$10,714.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($392.0)
$1.0
($94.0)
($728.0)

($25.0)


($9,944.0)
($1,703.0)
($11,647.0)

($7,475.0)
($499.0)
($1,996.0)
($1,609.0)
($11,579.0)
($14.0)
($23,240.0)

($277.0)


$1,714.0
$1,018.0
$454.0
69

-------
Program Project
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
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research: Air, Climate and Energy
Research: Air, Climate and Energy
Global Change
Clean Air
Research: Air, Climate and
Energy (other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate
and Energy
Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate and
Energy
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources
Research: Safe and Sustainable
Water Resources
Drinking Water
Water Quality
Research: Safe and
Sustainable Water
Resources (other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources
Subtotal, Research: Safe and Sustainable
Water Resources
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,534.0
$72,918.0
$72,918.0

$3,750.0
$2,279.0
$537.0
$6,566.0


$20,822.0
$81,605.0
$9,022.0
$111,449.0
$111,449.0


$49,103.0
$61,918.0
$52.0
$111,073.0
$111,073.0


FY 2010
Actuals
$7,587.2
$72,841.7
$72,841.7

$4,146.4
$2,285.9
$505.1
$6,937.4


$19,646.9
$74,670.2
$8,441.0
$102,758.1
$102,758.1


$50,346.0
$58,586.9
$0.0
$108,932.9
$108,932.9


FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$9,534.0
$72,918.0
$72,918.0

$3,750.0
$2,279.0
$537.0
$6,566.0


$20,822.0
$81,605.0
$9,022.0
$111,449.0
$111,449.0


$49,103.0
$61,918.0
$52.0
$111,073.0
$111,073.0


FY 2012
Pres Budget
$9,951.0
$76,521.0
$76,521.0

$3,839.0
$2,448.0
$544.0
$6,831.0


$20,805.0
$83,102.0
$4,093.0
$108,000.0
$108,000.0


$52,495.0
$66,229.0
$52.0
$118,776.0
$118,776.0


FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$417.0
$3,603.0
$3,603.0

$89.0
$169.0
$7.0
$265.0


($17.0)
$1,497.0
($4,929.0)
($3,449.0)
($3,449.0)


$3,392.0
$4,311.0
$0.0
$7,703.0
$7,703.0


70

-------
Program Project
Human Health
Ecosystems
Research: Sustainable and
Healthy Communities
(other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable
and Healthy Communities
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable
Communities
Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
Endocrine Disrupters
Computational Toxicology
Research: Chemical Safety
and Sustainability (other
activities)
Subtotal, Research: Chemical
Safety and Sustainability
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Subtotal, Congressionally
Mandated Projects
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2010
Enacted
$54,180.0
$71,698.0
$62,217.0
$188,095.0
$188,095.0

$42,899.0

$11,350.0
$20,044.0
$46,437.0
$77,831.0
$120,730.0

$3,637.0

$5,700.0
$5,700.0
$848,049.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$54,324.6
$68,805.1
$59,873.0
$183,002.7
$183,002.7

$41,516.4

$12,471.9
$13,929.9
$48,819.3
$75,221.1
$116,737.5

$3,889.3

$4,568.0
$4,568.0
$817,677.7
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$53,180.0
$70,698.0
$62,217.0
$186,095.0
$186,095.0

$42,899.0

$11,350.0
$20,044.0
$46,437.0
$77,831.0
$120,730.0

$3,637.0

$5,700.0
$5,700.0
$846,049.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$45,392.0
$60,905.0
$64,729.0
$171,026.0
$171,026.0

$42,400.0

$16,883.0
$21,209.0
$57,565.0
$95,657.0
$138,057.0

$3,787.0

$0.0
$0.0
$825,596.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($8,788.0)
($10,793.0)
$2,512.0
($17,069.0)
($17,069.0)

($499.0)

$5,533.0
$1,165.0
$11,128.0
$17,826.0
$17,327.0

$150.0

($5,700.0)
($5,700.0)
($22,453.0)
71

-------
Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                72

-------
                                                 Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
                                                     Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$20,791.0
$9,963.0
$30,754.0
88.6
FY2010
Actuals
$20,664.3
$9,329.3
$29,993.6
83.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$20,791.0
$9,963.0
$30,754.0
88.6
FY2012
Pres Budget
$20,842.0
$9,797.0
$30,639.0
86.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$51.0
($166.0)
($115.0)
-1.9
Program Project Description:

This program develops, implements, assesses, and provides regulatory and modeling support for
federally-administered, multi-state programs that address major regional and national air issues
from the power sector and other large stationary sources. Trading programs help implement the
National Ambient  Air Quality  Standards  (NAAQS)  and  reduce acid  deposition,  toxics
deposition, and regional haze.  Pollutants include sulfur dioxide (862),  nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and, as a co-benefit of 862 emission reductions,  mercury.  Current operating programs include
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) seasonal and annual programs for interstate control of
ozone and fine  particle (PM2.5) pollution, as well as  Acid Rain's SO2 and  NOX  emission
reduction programs authorized under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments
(described  in  the  Clean Air Allowance Trading  Program  description under  Environmental
Programs and Management).

In accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court's State
of North Carolina vs. the Environmental Protection Agency  decision in December 2008, the
Clean Air Interstate Rule,  promulgated by EPA in  May  2005, will "remain in effect until it is
replaced by a rule consistent with  [the  Court's July  11, 2008]  opinion"  so  as to  "at  least
temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR."1  The Court remanded CAIR
to EPA  for further rulemaking consistent with the opinion and, concurrently, told EPA and the
affected states to proceed with full  and timely implementation of the original rule provisions to
cut SC>2 and NOX emissions. CAIR was designed to control the contribution of transported SC>2
and NOX to ozone and PM2.s nonattainment areas in the Eastern U.S. Transported 862 and NOX
emissions are significant contributors to nonattainment in many states and, pursuant to the "good
neighbor" provision of the  CAA,  upwind  states must  share responsibility  for achieving air
quality goals.

All the  28  affected states  and  the District of Columbia elected to  achieve  the mandated
reductions  primarily  by  controlling power  plant  emissions  through  an  EPA-administered
 U.S. Court of Appeals for the B.C. Circuit, No. 05-1244, page 3 (decided December 23, 2008).
                                           73

-------
interstate cap-and-trade  program.  Under CAIR, Phase 1, annual  SC>2 and NOX emissions are
capped  and there is an additional seasonal NOX cap for states with sources that  contribute
significantly to transported ozone pollution.  Both the CAIR NOX and  862 control programs
began on schedule in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

In 2009, when compliance with the CAIR NOX programs became mandatory, ozone season NOX
emissions fell in every state in the program.  Units in the seasonal program reduced their overall
NOX emissions from 689,000 tons in 2008 to 495,000 tons in 2009.  A 22 percent improvement
in emission rate, coupled with an 11 percent drop in heat input, accounted for this reduction. The
introduction of the annual CAIR NOX program in 2009 cut year-round emissions substantially as
program participants  operated  control  devices outside the summer  months.   Annual  NOX
emissions from  electric generating units (EGUs) fell 43  percent  while  power  demand (as
measured by heat input) for those sources dropped only 10 percent.  For  additional information
on CAIR, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oar/cair.

On July 6, 2010, EPA  finalized its proposal for  a Transport Rule  to replace CAIR utilizing
approaches consistent with the Court's  opinion.  The proposed Transport Rule satisfies three
requirements:

    1)  Fulfills EPA's legal obligation to provide federal implementation plans or FIPs to reduce
       air pollution  that significantly affects another state;
    2)  Clarifies state obligations to reduce pollution affecting other states under the CAA; and
    3)  Responds to  the court ruling vacating the 2005 CAIR and the 2006  CAIR FIPs.

EPA intends to  finalize this  proposed rule as soon as possible  to  help provide certainty for
sources and states. The rule will clarify that emissions reductions needed for states to address the
interstate air pollution transport problem will  continue, and that greater needed reductions will
occur in the future.

EPA is responsible for managing the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), a 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 acid deposition, rural
ground-level  ozone, and  other  forms  of  particulate and gaseous air pollution.   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
and regional emission control programs through monitoring geographic  patterns  and temporal
trends  in ambient air quality and atmospheric deposition in  non-urban areas  of the  country.
Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition  monitoring  network is critical for the
accountability of the Acid Rain Program and regional programs for controlling transported
emissions and air pollution.

Surface water chemistry is a direct indicator of the environmental effects  of acid deposition and
enables assessment of how water bodies  and aquatic ecosystems are responding to reductions in
sulfur and  nitrogen emissions.  Two  EPA-administered programs, the Temporally  Integrated
Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) program and the Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) program,
were specifically designed to assess whether the 1990 Clean Air Act  Amendments  have been
                                           74

-------
effective in reducing the acidity of surface waters in sensitive areas.  Both programs are operated
cooperatively with numerous partners in state agencies, academic institutions, and other federal
agencies.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will:

    •   Begin implementation of the First Phase of the Transport Rule to assure that NOx and
       SC>2 emissions reductions being achieved under CAIR will continue. The timing of rule
       implementation phases addresses the Court's concern that compliance deadlines consider
       downwind  state NAAQS  attainment deadlines.  The First Phase begins in FY 2012,
       aligned with 2012 ozone NAAQS attainment deadlines.

    •   Provide legal support as needed for the Transport Rule and analysis of modifications so
       control of emissions transport across state lines is synchronized with any changes to the
       ozone and PM 2.s standards.  Implementation of the Second Phase of the Transport Rule
       is aligned with the first deadline for daily PM 2.5 NAAQS  attainment.

    •   Assist states and sources in transitioning from the CAIR NOx and SC>2 control programs
       to  implementation of the Transport Rule.   Provide  technical  assistance to states in
       implementing state plans and rules for NOx and  SO2 control  programs under the
       Transport Rule. Assist states in resolving issues related to source applicability, emissions
       monitoring, monitor certification and reporting.

    •   Modify   and transition   operating  infrastructure   from  CAIR   to  Transport  Rule
       implementation. Effective and efficient operation of multi-state programs for controlling
       interstate  emissions transport  depends  critically  upon  ongoing  maintenance  and
       continuous improvement of the e-GOV infrastructure supporting the electronic emissions
       reporting, monitor certification, and compliance determination systems.

    •   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 will  continue on performance specifications  and investigating
       monitoring alternatives and methods to  improve the efficiency of monitor certification
       and emissions data reporting.

    •   Assist  states with considering  regional  programs  for EGUs  to  comply  with the
       110(A)(2)(d) requirements generated by the new ozone  standard.  EPA will work with
       states  to create flexible approaches,  such as  cap-and-trade programs  and emissions
       averaging, where they potentially could be more cost-effective than application of source-
       specific emission standards.

In FY 2012, 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.
                                           75

-------
In FY 2012, the program will continue to manage CASTNET.  The FY 2012 request level for
CASTNET is $3.95M.2 In addition, the program will continue managing the TIME and LTM
programs for monitoring surface water chemistry and aquatic ecosystem  response in sensitive
areas of the U.S. The FY 2012 request level for TEVIE/LTM is $0.83M.

Reducing emissions of 862 and NOx 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
also can be formed through chemical reactions in the air.  Emissions of SC>2 and NOx can be
chemically transformed into sulfate and nitrates that are very tiny particles which, when inhaled,
can cause serious  respiratory problems and may lead to premature mortality.  Sulfates  and
nitrates can be carried, by winds, hundreds of miles from the emitting source.  These same small
particles  also are a main pollutant that impairs visibility across large areas of the  country,
particularly  damaging  in national parks known for their  scenic  views.   Nitrogen dioxide
emissions also  contribute substantially to the formation of ground-level ozone.  Ozone, when
inhaled in sufficient concentrations, can cause serious respiratory problems.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Clean Air Allowance Trading
Programs  under the Environmental  Program Management  Tab  and can  be found in  the
Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$182.0)  This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This  initiative targets certain  categories  of spending for efficiencies  and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$16.0) This reflects an increase in contracts funding to support the  finalization of the
       CAIR replacement rule.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
' For additional information on CASTNET, please visit http://www.epa. gov/CASTNET/.
                                           76

-------
                                                            Climate Protection Program
                                                     Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                     Objective(s): Address Climate Change

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$113,044.0
$19,797.0
$132,841.0
226.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$109,726.1
$20,126.8
$129,852.9
243.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$113,044.0
$19,797.0
$132,841.0
226.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$111,419.0
$16,345.0
$127,764.0
258.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($1,625.0)
($3,452.0)
($5,077.0)
32.4
Program Project Description:

The  Clean Automotive  Technology (CAT) program provides  EPA with laboratory and real-
world assessments and demonstrations of promising advanced, high-efficiency and  low-GHG
technologies that can better protect the environment and save energy.  The CAT program has
developed very advanced and unique technical expertise of diesel, alcohol and gasoline engine
combustion and hydraulic hybrid vehicle propulsion.  Its extensive work with advanced series
hybrids  and ultra clean engines has provided a deep understanding of the technology pathways
and their potential to cost-effectively  achieve large reductions of criteria and GHG  emissions
from  both  cars  and   trucks.     For   more   information   about   CAT,   please  visit:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology.

The CAT program uses its engine and  powertrain experience to assist the development of future
low-GHG cars  and trucks.  This valuable expertise helps develop and  demonstrate technology
options, assess  technical viability,  determine benefits, and evaluate costs in support of industry
efforts to  reduce future GHG emissions.  Thorough knowledge of emerging engine, electric
hybrid, hydraulic hybrid and plug-in technologies enables more informed assessments of future
GHG reduction options. This knowledge increases the productivity of EPA's efforts to formulate
technology-forcing GHG standards and GHG regulatory effects  through considering the real-
world potential  of various technologies within the regulatory timeframe.

The CAT program also uses its technology know-how and expertise to assist companies wishing
to rapidly  deploy cost-effective low greenhouse gas (GHG) technologies into the transportation
sector of the economy.   The CAT program's  technology transfer collaboration  occurs with
universities, as well as automotive, trucking, and fleet industries.  Through cooperative research
and development agreements (CRADA), EPA  demonstrates innovative technologies that can
extend the range of battery vehicles  and  advance hybrids with clean-engine technologies  in
vehicles such as  minivans, SUVs, pickup trucks, urban delivery trucks, school buses, shuttle
buses, refuse trucks, and plug-in hybrids. These demonstrations establish the practical  feasibility
of low cost technologies capable of large GHG reductions, thus providing direct support to mid-
term GHG regulation.
                                           77

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the CAT Program will:

    •   Demonstrate doubling battery range of all-electric commercial vehicles using hydraulic
       technology - In congested urban operation, most of a battery-only vehicle's energy is
       needed for accelerations.  As  more than 50% of the energy  supplied to the wheels is
       available for recovery, significantly improving the regenerative braking systems for these
       electric vehicles could as much as  double their range (or conversely,  reduce the size of
       the  battery).  Demonstration of this new application of hydraulic technology to  all-
       electric vehicles will allow evaluation of vehicle performance and project cost reductions.

    •   Evaluate and demonstrate high fuel efficiency, packaging, noise, vibration and harshness
       (NVH), and cost of series hydraulic hybrid technology in  minivans/pickup trucks - Apply
       EPA's expertise and know-how to address challenges that are  unique to series hydraulic
       hybrid technology in light-duty vehicles.  Solving these difficult packaging, noise and
       cost issues would create powerful affordable low-GHG reduction  solutions that could be
       easily applied to vehicle fleets to reduce greenhouse gases from the US and globally.

    •   Assess commercially viable high-efficiency low-GHG spark-ignition engines for light and
       heavy vehicles - Fundamental research suggests that an 18 to 28 percent improvement in
       gasoline and alcohol engine efficiency is possible beyond today's state-of-the-art engines,
       while  maintaining criteria emission reductions.  Demonstration of  these technologies will
       identify  practical efficiency benefits,  performance limitations,  fuel requirements (octane
       sulfur, etc.), as well as validate  low  cost projections.

    •   Partner  on series hydraulic hybrid/clean engine shuttles with California South Coast Air
       Quality  Management  District  - Demonstrate  low GHG potential from shuttle  buses
       equipped  with  series  hydraulic hybrid technology  and  powered by  the world's first
       gasoline  HCCI engine. The HCCI  engine  gets  diesel   efficiency from gasoline fuel
       without  the need  for costly  diesel  after treatment.  This phase of the partnership will
       begin  a real-world evaluation of a pilot fleet of vehicles  with ultra clean gasoline HCCI
       engines to determine its durability and cost-effectiveness to reduce emissions  and GHGs.

    •   Transfer technology to affordably double fuel efficiency  of urban commercial vehicles -
       Uphold  CRADA commitments established in 2010 to transfer 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 of affordable heavy hybrids. In addition, the program will
       continue the technology  transfer  of  EPA's  advances in clean engine  combustion
       technologies  (such  as clean  combustion gasoline  homogeneous-charge compression
       ignition  (HCCI) engines and high-efficiency E85 engines).
                                           78

-------
Performance Targets:

The  Clean  Automotive  Technology program is working through  its technology  transfer
demonstration projects with industry to develop performance data that definitively quantifies the
"real-world" vehicle greenhouse gas reduction potential of these clean automotive technologies.
EPA's initial testing of two of its real-world hydraulic hybrid vehicles (HHV) showed significant
improvement in fuel economy.

The CAT program has added to its commercialization goals to include technology transfer for
the first  phase of retrofitting hydraulic  hybrid and engine technology in medium and  heavy
commercial trucks through 2013, and in light-duty vehicles through 2015.

Work  under this program supports the  strategic objective: "Addressing Climate Change."
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012  Change from FY 2010 Enacted  (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$77.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-$33.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as
       email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and  others
       totaling $10  million agencywide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

   •   (-$202.0) This reflects a reduction to EPA's technology transfer support for cooperative
       research and development agreement  (CRADA) partners working to  commercialize
       hydraulic  hybrid  retrofit  for  high-volume hybridization of on-the-road medium
       commercial vehicles.

   •   (-$318.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$1,976.0) This reduction  reflects a phase down of the federal  cost-share for California
       technology demonstration partnerships  (with  South Coast Air Quality Management
       District, California Air Resources Board, and California Energy Commission), requiring
       California to pick up a greater share of the cost in order to demonstrate these advanced
       technologies in their fleets.

   •   (-$1,000.0)  Funding will be discontinued in this appropriation  for the ENERGY  STAR
       program since ENERGY STAR work under the Science and Technology appropriation will
       be completed in FY 2010.  Funding for ENERGY STAR is  continued in the Environmental
       Programs and Management appropriation.
                                           79

-------
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.
                                          80

-------
                                            Federal Support for Air Quality Management
                                                      Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$99,619.0
$11,443.0
$111,062.0
714.7
FY2010
Actuals
$103,224.6
$12,480.6
$115,705.2
707.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$99,619.0
$11,443.0
$111,062.0
714.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$133,822.0
$7,650.0
$141,472.0
850.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$34,203.0
($3,793.0)
$30,410.0
135.9
Program Project Description:

Federal support for the criteria pollutant and air toxics programs includes a variety of tools to
help characterize ambient air quality and the level of risk to the public from toxics in the air, and
to help measure national progress toward improving air quality and reducing air toxics risk.  The
program supports development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) through modeling and other
tools. The program also develops and provides 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.  Finally, the program includes activities related to the stationary source residual risk
program, which involves an assessment of source categories subject to Maximum Achievable
Control Technology standards to determine if more  stringent  standards are needed to further
reduce the risks to public health (taking into account developments in  practices,  processes, and
control technologies).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

As  part  of implementing the ozone and fine particulate matter (PM^.s) standards, EPA  will
continue providing  state and local  governments with substantial  assistance in developing SIPs
during FY 2012.  EPA will ensure national consistency in how conformity determinations are
conducted across the U.S., and the  Agency will work  with state and local air quality agencies to
ensure that PM2.5  hot-spot analyses are conducted in a manner consistent with the transportation
conformity regulation and guidance.   EPA also will  assist areas in identifying  the most cost-
effective control options available  and provide guidance, as needed, for areas that implement
conformity.

In FY 2012, 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.
EPA is working to implement improvements  to the  National  Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) federal program, within current statutory limitations, that  address  deficiencies in
design and implementation and identify and  evaluate needed  improvements.  The air quality
grants and permitting program will  be improved by implementing updates to the grant allocation
processes to ensure resources are properly targeted and utilizing  program efficiency measures.
                                           81

-------
In FY  2012,  EPA  will  work with  partners  to  continue  improving  emission factors  and
inventories,  including a better automated, higher quality National Emissions Inventory.  This
effort includes gathering improved activity databases and using geographic information systems
and satellite remote  sensing,  where possible, for key  point,  area, mobile, and fugitive source
categories and  global  emission  events.   A  key  part of EPA's improved  emissions  factors
development program relies upon electronic  submissions of emissions data directly from the
sources affected by our regulations.   The data that are required for improving our emissions
factors are the same  data that are  required to review regulations.  By obtaining the data as it is
being collected,  EPA's goal with this effort is  to reduce the need for developing information
collection requests that are typical every time the Agency begins  the rule development process.
The  electronic  collection of data will  not  only expedite  the development and revision of
emissions factors, but it will also allow EPA to develop rules in a more efficient manner once the
electronic data  collection program is  fully operational.  EPA also is working on  improving
monitoring systems to fill data gaps and to get a better  assessment of actual population exposure
to toxic air pollution.

Performance Targets:

EPA, collaborating with the states, will implement federal measures, assist with the development
of SIPs, and develop air toxics tools to continue improving air quality (as measured by the air
quality index and other measures)  and to continue reducing air toxics risk.

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Federal Support for Air
Quality Management Program in the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found
in the Performance Four Year Array in  Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$123.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of  base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-$4,751.0 / -28.2 FTE) This represents the outgoing transfer of mobile source resources,
       including 28.2 FTE with associated payroll of $4,097.0, to the Federal Vehicle and Fuels
       Standards and  Certification Program in support of  a sector-based multi-pollutant
       approach to air quality management.

   •   (+$968.0) This represents  the incoming transfer of stationary source resources from the
       Federal Support for Air Toxics program. The  Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
       has been consolidated with  this  program in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant
       approach to air quality management.

   •   (-$56.0) This decrease in  travel  costs reflects  an effort to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel  and conferencing.
                                           82

-------
    •   (-$77.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to  redesign  processes  and streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                             83

-------
                                                Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
                                                     Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$24,446.0
$2,398.0
$26,844.0
145.8
FY2010
Actuals
$23,468.8
$2,381.7
$25,850.5
138.8
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$24,446.0
$2,398.0
$26,844.0
145.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($24,446.0)
($2,398.0)
($26,844.0)
-145.8
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 from  toxics in the air and help measure the Agency's progress in
reducing this risk. The program develops and provides 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. The program also includes activities related to the Stationary Source Residual
Risk Program.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

All activities  in  this program  will be  assumed  by the Federal  Support for Air Quality
Management Program and the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program to
support the switch to a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.

Performance Targets:

There are no FY 2012 performance targets associated with this  program project  because the
resources have been transferred to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program and
the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010  Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$968.0)  This represents  a transfer of funding and program responsibilities  for the
       Stationary Source Program to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program
       in support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.

   •   (-$1,430.0 / -5.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of funding and program responsibilities
       for the mobile source program, including 5.4 FTE with associated payroll of $776.0, to
       the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program in support of a sector-
       based multi-pollutant approach to air quality management.
                                           84

-------
Statutory Authority:




CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                          85

-------
                                   Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
                                                     Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                 Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)



Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted
$91,782.0
$91,782.0
306.2

FY2010
Actuals
$87,648.2
$87,648.2
309.7

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$91,782.0
$91,782.0
306.2

FY2012
Pres Budget
$100,578.0
$100,578.0
357.8
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$8,796.0
$8,796.0
51.6
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 air pollution. EPA establishes national emissions standards for
each of these sources  to reduce  the production of air pollution. The Agency also provides
emissions and fuel economy information for new cars, and educates consumers on the ways their
actions affect the environment.

Primary responsibilities include  developing, implementing,  and ensuring  compliance with
national standards 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, tribal, and local air quality managers and transportation
planners with access to 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.

EPA works with  states and local  governments to ensure the technical integrity of the  mobile
source  controls  in  State  Implementation  Plans  (SIPs)  and  transportation  conformity
determinations. EPA also develops and provides information and tools to assist state, local, and
tribal agencies,  as well as communities, to reduce air toxics emissions and risks specific to their
local areas. Reductions in emissions of mobile source air toxics, such  as diesel particulate matter
(PM), are achieved through establishing national emissions standards  and innovative partnership
approaches working with state, local,  and tribal governments, as well  as a variety of stakeholder
groups.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Climate Change

In FY 2012, EPA will undertake a number of critical  mobile source related actions to implement
the Administrator's priority to take common-sense actions to address climate change.  These
efforts will include actions to implement the first-ever harmonized fuel economy and greenhouse
                                           86

-------
gas (GHG) emission standards  for light-duty vehicles (model years 2012-2016) which were
finalized by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in April
2010 (40 CR Parts 85, 86 and 600).  EPA also will be responding to the President's May 2010
directive to work with NHTSA to finalize first-time fuel economy and GHG emission standards
for heavy-duty vehicles, which are the transportation sector's second largest contributor to oil
consumption and GHG emissions. In addition, EPA will be responding to the President's
directive to work with NHTSA to develop  a coordinated national  program that will set further
standards to improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions for light-duty vehicles for model
years 2017 and later.  All of these programs  have the goal of taking coordinated steps to deliver a
new generation of clean vehicles, and to do this through a cohesive federal program that also is
harmonized with applicable state requirements. In addition, the Agency will continue its work to
assess  GHG emissions from non-road  sources, specifically  ocean-going vessels and aircraft.
EPA  is  participating  in the  appropriate  international  forums  for ocean-going  vessels
(International   Maritime  Organization-IMO)  and  aircraft   (International  Civil   Aviation
Organization-ICAO)  in order to coordinate its efforts to address GHG emissions from these
sources.

In the fuels arena, EPA will  continue to implement the new Renewable Fuel  Standards (RFS2)
program  and carry out several other actions required by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005
and the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.  EISA dramatically expanded
the renewable fuels provisions of EPAct and requires additional EPA studies  in various areas of
renewable fuel use.

                     Energy Independence and Security Act
Type of Fuel (Categories)
Total Renewable Fuels by 2022
Corn Ethanol (Starch Based)
Advanced Biofuels - Includes imported biofuels and
biodiesel.
Includes 1 billion gpy biodiesel starting in 2009
All must achieve > 50% reduction of GHG emissions
from baseline*
Cellulosic Fuels - Includes cellulosic ethanol,
biobutanol, green diesel, green gasoline
All must achieve >60% reduction of GHG emissions from
baseline*
Billions of
Gallons/Yr
36BGY
15BGYcap
21
16
*
Baseline = average lifecycle GHG emissions as determined by EPA Administrator for gasoline or diesel
(whichever is being replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005
EISA requires that EPA set an annual RFS standard and the 2012  RFS  standard will be
promulgated in FY 2012. EISA also required EPA to develop a comprehensive lifecycle GHG
methodology to  implement  the  Act's  GHG  threshold requirements.   A multi-year  testing
emission program to address  the EPAct/EISA requirements will be completed in FY 2011.  The
testing program evaluates the impact of fuel properties (e.g., aromatic content, vapor pressure,
distillation properties, ethanol content, etc.) on  light-duty vehicle emissions.   In FY 2012, EPA
                                          87

-------
will continue evaluating the results of the testing program, incorporating the newly gathered data
into emission models and regulatory analyses.  The results from this program will be used to
update the Agency's fuel effects model used to support regulations. In FY 2012, the Agency also
will continue to implement its real-time reporting  system to ensure compliance with RFS2
provisions. This real-time system will handle 4,000 to 6,000 submissions per day, encompassing
30,000 to 40,000 transactions per day, and the generation of 1.2 billion Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs) per month. RINs are assigned to each gallon of renewable fuel generated, and
recording RINs allows for an accurate tracking of the renewable throughout the supply chain. In
addition, the  Agency will  continue to develop and update lifecycle models to allow assessment
of new biofuel  technologies and to evaluate feedstocks and fuel pathways for future fuels and
processes.

FY 2012 represents  year  four in EPA's five-year modernization plan to upgrade its vehicle,
engine, and fuel testing  capabilities at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions  Laboratory
(NVFEL).  Because EPA  is responsible for establishing the test procedures needed to measure
emissions  and estimate the fuel economy of new vehicles, and for verifying car manufacturers'
data on fuel economy, the Agency is investing in additional testing and certification capacity to
ensure that new vehicles, engines,  and fuels are in compliance with new vehicle  and fuel
standards.  The  new standards  for vehicle greenhouse gas  emissions  in particular  will require
EPA to more frequently verify car manufacturers' data for a greater variety of vehicle and engine
technologies.  To prepare for this workload, the Agency will continue its support of the multi-
year National Vehicle  and Fuel Emissions  Laboratory (NVFEL)  modernization  effort.  In FY
2012,  $6.2 million  will be  allocated to the NVFEL modernization  effort, addressing EPA's
highest priority needs related  to certifying new heavy-duty vehicles with GHG emissions
standards.

Concurrent with the upgrade of the NVFEL testing facilities and equipment, EPA is  requesting 8
additional  FTE to address the increased workload  resulting from growth in its  vehicle and
compliance program in both size and complexity.  The FY 2012 workload reflects  a more than
four-fold increase in the number of vehicle  and engine certificates EPA issues and much more
challenging oversight requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program and fuels
programs  due to the diversity of  sophisticated technologies and the expanded international
universe of the regulated parties that must be monitored to ensure a fair competitive playing field

Clean Air

EPA  will  continue  to achieve  results in reducing pollution from  mobile sources, especially
nitrogen oxide  (NOx)  emissions associated with national emissions standards included in the
Agency's National Clean Diesel Campaign.  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. Under the recently finalized Locomotive  and Marine Engines Rule, new fuel
and engine requirements will reduce dangerous fine  particle pollution (PM) by 90  percent and
NOx  by 80 percent for newly-built locomotives and marine diesel engines.  Combined, these

-------
measures will prevent over 26,000 premature deaths each year, reduce millions  of tons of
pollution a year, and prevent hundreds of thousands of respiratory illnesses by 2030.
                    Clean Fuel/Engine Standards will Lead to
                  Substantial Air Quality/Health Benefits in 2030
2030
NOx (short tons)
PM25 (short tons)
VOC (short tons)
SOx (short tons)
Cost
Net Benefits
Avoided Premature
Mortality
Avoided Hospital
Admission
Avoided Lost Work
Days
Light-duty
Tier 2
2,800,000
36,000
401,000
281,000
$5 billion
$25 billion
4,300
3,000
700,000
Heavy-duty
2007
2,600,000
109,000
115,000
142,000
$4 billion
$70 billion
8,300
7,100
1 .5 million
Nonroad
Diesel
Tier 4
738,000
1 29,000
34,000
376,000
$2 billion
$80 billion
12,000
8,900
1 .0 million
Locomotive
& Marine
Diesel
795,000
27,000
43,000
0
$740 million
$11 billion
1,400
870
1 20,000
2030 Total
6,933,000
301 ,000
593,000
799,000
$11. 74 billion
$186 billion
26,000
1 9,870
3,320,000
In addition, the recently finalized rule to control emissions from ocean-going vessels will reduce
NOx emission rates by 80 percent and PM emission rates by 85 percent, compared to the current
limits applicable to this class of marine engines,  and prevent an additional 13,000 premature
deaths annually (40 CFR Parts 80, 85, et al).

Additional emission reductions from light-duty vehicles will be a key strategy in helping areas
attain the ozone,  PM, and nitrogen  dioxide (NC>2)  National  Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQSs) and in reducing exposure to toxics  for the millions of people living, working, or
going to school near major roads. In FY 2012, EPA will work on new light-duty vehicle control
regulations (Tier 3), which could include tighter NOx standards, off-cycle standards, and PM
standards for gasoline  vehicles.  The Tier 3 program may also  include lower limits for sulfur in
gasoline that will enable tighter emission standards by allowing more efficient aftertreatment.
Gasoline sulfur  control  could  also  provide  immediate benefits through  in-use fleet and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction co-benefits. The program will address any needs for
mitigation of adverse air quality impacts that might develop from the increased use of renewable
fuels (e.g., increase in NOx due to increases in ethanol use).

EPA's NVFEL will continue to conduct testing operations  on  motor vehicles,  heavy-duty
engines, nonroad engines, and fuels to certify that all  vehicles, engines, and fuels that enter the
U.S. market comply with all federal clean air and fuel economy standards. The NVFEL will
continue to conduct vehicle emission tests as part of pre-production tests, certification audits, in-
use assessments,  and  recall programs to ensure compliance with mobile source  clean air
programs.  Tests are conducted on a spot check basis on motor vehicles, heavy-duty engines,
nonroad 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,
                                           89

-------
fuel additives, and exhaust compounds meet federal standards.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue
to conduct testing activities for tailpipe emissions, fuel economy, gasoline sulfur, reformulated
gasoline, ultra low sulfur diesel, alternative fuel vehicle conversion certifications,  Onboard
Diagnostics  (OBD) evaluations, certification audits, and recall programs. In addition to these
testing activities, EPA will continue expanding its compliance testing of heavy-duty and nonroad
engines.

In FY 2012, EPA anticipates reviewing and approving approximately 5,000 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 for marine and small spark-ignited engines.

                   The Number of EPA-lssued Vehicle and Engine
                Certificates Have More Than Quadrupled Since 1995
  Model Year 1995 Certificates
          Total = 810
     LDV. ICL Alt Fuel. HMC,
      OFMC. HDDE. HDGE
  Model Year 2008 Certificates
       Total = 3,640+
                                                            ^.
                                 Large SI-59   ***•«-HI    NRCI-618 Small SI - 1.06:
                              Locomotive - 76  ATV - 304  Snowmobiles - 37  Marine CI - 137
LDV - 512 IC1 - 10 Alt Fuel - 24 HMC - 485
  OFMC-71 1IDDE-75 IIDGE-30
 Projected
Model Year
   2012
Certificates
                                                                      Total = 5,000+
Certification and compliance testing of advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, light-duty diesel applications, and  advanced after-treatment for heavy-duty highway
vehicles will be a major focus in FY 2012. 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.  EPA will continue to be responsible for vehicle
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)  and gas guzzler fuel  economy testing and for
providing the fuel economy data to the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy,
and the Internal Revenue Service. In FY 2012, EPA expects to expend significant resources on
ensuring compliance with certification as well as in-use requirements for foreign-built engines
and equipment.

A rule  establishing onboard diagnostics  (OBD) requirements for nonroad  engines will be
developed in FY 2012.  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. OBD standards are needed to ensure that engines are properly maintained
and compliant, ensuring that the full benefits of the emission standards are  realized in the real
world. In addition, EPA will implement an in-use compliance testing program for nonroad diesel
                                           90

-------
engines conducted by diesel engine manufacturers per a consent decree. This program is vital to
ensuring that new engine standards are actually met in-use under real-world conditions.  Other
priorities include addressing off-cycle emissions from heavy-duty trucks through the application
of a supplemental test procedure, a rulemaking (in response to court remand) justifying and
updating the 2012 model year standards for snowmobiles, and the  promulgation of new jet
aircraft engine emission standards that would align federal rules with international standards and
propose other controls and program upgrades under Clean Air Act (CAA) authority.  In addition,
the Agency will continue its efforts to evaluate the use of lead in  aviation gasoline and its use in
piston engines.

EPA will continue to  support implementation of existing vehicle, engine, and fuel regulations
including the Tier II light-duty (LD) vehicle program, the Mobile Sources Air Toxics (MSAT)
programs, 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.  The Agency also will continue implementation activities for the
Locomotives/Marine rule finalized in 2008 and for small gasoline engine standards that began
with model  year 2009.  Other FY 2012 activities include the implementation of the Agency's
new GHG fuel economy labelling program and ongoing assessment and analysis of emissions
and fuel economy compliance data. Ensuring that  emission standards are actually met under
real-world conditions is an essential element of EPA's efforts to ensure fair competition and a
level economic playing field,  EPA will continue to  implement a  manufacturer-run,  in-use
compliance  surveillance  program for  highway heavy-duty diesel, locomotive, marine spark
ignition (SI) and large  SI engines.

EPA's  emission  models  provide the overarching  architecture that supports EPA's regulatory
programs, generating emission factors  and inventories needed to quantify emission reductions.
EPA continues to improve in this area with the  development of the new mobile source emission
model, MOVES. MOVES is greatly improving 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.  The CAA requires regular updates of the emission
models to account for technology changes  and new emission data.   Assessing mobile source
emissions requires sustained and ongoing emission research resources. In FY 2012, EPA will
continue improving MOVES by implementing emission testing programs to collect the necessary
information  from  new technologies, incorporating new emission data  into  the  model,  and
expanding the application of the model to  include  additional  nonroad sources and toxic
emissions.

As part of implementing the eight-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.s) standards, EPA
will continue to provide  state and local governments with  substantial assistance in developing
SIPs and making conformity determinations during this period. In FY 2012, EPA will continue
to ensure national consistency in how conformity determinations are conducted across the United
States  and continue to ensure consistency in adequacy findings for motor vehicle  emissions
budgets in air quality plans, which are  used  in  conformity  determinations.   EPA also  will
continue 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
                                           91

-------
the technical integrity of the mobile source controls in the SIPs for the eight-hour ozone and
PM2.5 air quality.  EPA also will assist in identifying 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
OBD systems on vehicle models to make sure that OBD is a reliable  check on the emissions
systems.  In 2010, basic and/or enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance  testing was being
performed in over 30 states with technical and programmatic guidance from EPA. 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.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with a broad range of stakeholders to develop voluntary
incentives for different economic sectors (construction, ports, freight, and agriculture) to address
the emissions from existing diesel engines. Even without funds for Diesel  Emission Reduction
Act grants, 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
NAAQS 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 emissions reduction programs.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(N35) Cumulative
Millions of Tons of
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) reduced since
2002 from mobile
sources

FY 2010
Target


1.69



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target


1.86



FY 2012
Target


2.03



Units


Tons



Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(O33) Cumulative
Millions of Tons of
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources

FY 2010
Target


1.71



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target


1.88



FY 2012
Target


2.05



Units


Tons


                                           92

-------

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(O34) Cumulative
Millions of Tons of
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx) Reduced since
2000 from Mobile
Sources

FY 2010
Target


3.39



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target


3.73



FY 2012
Target


4.07



Units


Tons


Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(P34) Cumulative Tons
of PM-2.5 Reduced
since 2000 from
Mobile Sources
FY 2010
Target
122,434
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
136,677
FY 2012
Target
146,921
Units
Tons
Recent national emissions standards finalized by the Agency also include the control of air toxics
from  mobile sources (the  Mobile Source  Air Toxics Rule  in 2007),  significantly reducing
hydrocarbon  air toxics while  delivering PM co-benefits, and  the establishment of first-ever
evaporative  emission standards for small spark ignition  and  recreational  marine engines (the
Small Si/Recreational Marine Engine Rule in 2008). All together, EPA estimates that six recent
national standards, including the 2007 Heavy Duty, Nonroad Diesel Tier 4, and Light Duty Tier
2 rules, will yield approximately $300 billion in combined  benefits annually by 2030.

Performance  targets  for reduction  of toxicity-weighted emissions also are supported by work
under the Federal Stationary Source Regulations program project.

Work under this program project supports the Agency's High Priority Performance Goal
(Priority Goal), addressing measuring and controlling Greenhouse Gases. A list of the Agency's
Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A.  For a detailed description of the EPA's Priority
Goals (implementation strategy, measures and milestones)  please visit www.Performance.gov.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$433.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$4,115.0) This reflects a decrease in funding for modifications and equipment upgrades
       to EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL), which were funded
       at $10.3 million  in  FY  2010.   The FY 2012 funding level of $6.2M will be directed
       toward the building  of a new heavy-duty vehicle certification test site.  This new test site
       is critical to the Agency's ability to certify that new heavy-duty vehicles sold in the U.S.
                                           93

-------
   comply with the new GHG emission standards EPA will be issuing for  heavy-duty
   vehicles.

•  (+$1,359.0 / +8.0 FTE) This reflects an increase in FTE to address the more than four-
   fold increase in the number of vehicle and engine certificates EPA issues and the much
   more challenging oversight requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program
   and fuels programs due to the diversity of sophisticated technologies and the expanded
   international universe of the regulated parties that must be monitored.  This includes
   payroll of $1,329.0 and travel costs of $30.0.

*  (-$268.0) This  reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such
   as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
   totaling $10 million agencywide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
   mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

•  (+$2,050.07 +6.0 FTE)  This reflects additional resources to support the implementation
   of  the new national  GHG emissions/CAFE  standards  for passenger  cars, light-duty
   trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles for model years 2012-2016, compared to the
   FY 2010 spending levels.  These resources will advance U.S. policy to reduce greenhouse
   gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the
   United States.  This includes $797.0 for associated payroll.

•  (+$3,996.07 +4.0 FTE) This reflects an increase from FY 2010 spending levels to support
   implementation of Heavy-Duty GHG emission standards and for initial analysis and
   technology assessment efforts needed to support U.S. participation in international efforts
   at EVIO and ICAO to address GHG emissions from ocean-going vessels and commercial
   aircraft.  This analysis and technology assessment work will include inventory modeling,
   compliance modeling, cost estimation, and air quality benefits analysis.  This includes
   $531.0 for associated payroll.

•  (+$6,181.07 +33.6 FTE) This reflects an incoming  transfer of mobile source resources
   and FTE which had been distributed across multiple programs to the Federal Vehicle and
   Fuels Standards and Certification program, including 33.6 FTE  with associated payroll of
   $4,873.0.   This  increase is  offset by  an  equal  decrease  through  program  project
   consolidation.  This  consolidation  supports  the goals, objectives,  and performance
   measures of the overall mobile source program.

•  (+$269.0) This reflects an increase for programmatic laboratory fixed costs.

•  (-$138.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
   footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$971.0) This reflects  a  reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
   This  initiative  targets  certain categories  of  spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
   including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
                                        94

-------
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
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; EPAct of 2005; EISA of 2007; Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (40  CR Parts 85, 86  and 600); Control of
Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder
(40 CFR 80, 85, 86, 94,  1027, 1033, 1039, 1042,  1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, and
1068).
                                         95

-------
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                 96

-------
                                                           Indoor Air: Radon Program
                                                  Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$5,866.0
$453.0
$6,319.0
39.4
FY2010
Actuals
$5,408.1
$485.6
$5,893.7
33.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$5,866.0
$453.0
$6,319.0
39.4
FY2012
Pres Budget
$3,901.0
$210.0
$4,111.0
23.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($1,965.0)
($243.0)
($2,208.0)
-16.3
Program Project Description:

Title HI of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to undertake a variety of
activities to address the public health risks posed by exposures to indoor radon.  The law directs
EPA to study the health effects of radon, assess exposure levels, set an action level and advise
the public of steps they can take to reduce exposure, evaluate mitigation methods, institute
training centers to ensure a supply of competent radon service providers, establish radon
contractor proficiency programs, and assist states with program development through the
administration of a grants program.

This program, combined with the Indoor Air S & T Program, supports the Radiation and Indoor
Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las  Vegas, NV.   R&IE is the  only  Federal
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) radon laboratory.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, although the indoor air and radon programs will be shrinking and streamlining some
functions,  the funds provided in the President's Budget will  allow EPA to achieve results in
indoor radon risk reduction. As part of this reduction, EPA will have to reconsider the provision
of federal radon  laboratory services, potentially relying more on the State Indoor Radon Grants
program.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Indoor Air: Radon Program
under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four
Year Array in Tab 11.
                                          97

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$242.07-1.5 FTE)  To accommodate this  lower funding level, EPA plans to eliminate
       lower priority efforts to provide 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 distribution and analysis of test kits
       and analyses for community-based environmental justice partners.  The total reduction
       includes $158.0 in payroll funding and $4.0 in travel.

    •   (-$1.0) This reflects a reduction  as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory  contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990; 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
IRAA, Section 306.
                                           98

-------
                                                         Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
                                                  Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$20,759.0
$762.0
$21,521.0
63.8
FY2010
Actuals
$19,253.0
$808.0
$20,061.0
63.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$20,759.0
$762.0
$21,521.0
63.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$17,198.0
$370.0
$17,568.0
54.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($3,561.0)
($392.0)
($3,953.0)
-9.5
Program Project Description:

Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) gives the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  broad authority to conduct and coordinate research on
indoor air quality, develop and disseminate information on the subject, and coordinate efforts at
the federal, state, and local levels.

This program, combined with the Radon S  & T Program, supports the Radiation and Indoor
Environments  National Laboratory (R&IE)  in Las Vegas, NV.  R&IE  is the only  Federal
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) radon laboratory.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  EPA will continue to provide limited support to tribal communities  with  field
measurements and assessments upon request and provide technical support for indoor air quality
remediation.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in  the Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
program  under the Environmental  Program  Management  Tab  and can  be  found  in  the
Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$384.07 -1.5 FTE) To accommodate this lower funding level, EPA plans to eliminate
       lower  priority in-person  tribal training courses on  indoor  air quality intervention  and
       remediation approaches as well as lower the lab's capacity for responding to Regional
       requests for field measurements, assessments, and technical support. The total reduction
       includes $118.0 in payroll funding and $5.0 in travel.  With the FY 2012 President's
       Budget funding level,  EPA will continue to provide limited support to tribal communities
                                          99

-------
       with field measurements and assessments upon request and provide technical support for
       indoor air quality remediation.

   •   (-$8.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990: Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
                                            100

-------
                                                                   Radiation: Protection
                                                   Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                    Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2010
Actuals
$11,433.3
$1,962.1
$2,586.2
$15,981.6
84.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2012
Pres Budget
$9,629.0
$2,096.0
$2,487.0
$14,212.0
76.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($1,666.0)
$1.0
($8.0)
($1,673.0)
-12.5
Program Project Description:

This program supports the ongoing radiation  protection capability at 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.  These nationally-
recognized laboratories provide  radioanalytical  and  mixed  waste testing  and analysis of
environmental  samples to  support  site  assessment,  clean-up,  and  response  activities for
Superfund projects and in the event of an accident or radiological incident.

Both labs provide technical support  for conducting site-specific radiological characterizations
and cleanups, using the best available science to  develop risk assessment tools. The labs also
develop  guidance,  in  collaboration with  the  public,   industry,  states,  tribes, and  other
governments, for cleaning up Superfund and other sites that are contaminated with radioactive
materials.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2012,  EPA, in cooperation with  states, tribes, and other federal agencies,  will provide
ongoing  site  characterization and analytical support for site assessment activities, remediation
technologies, and measurement and  information systems. EPA also will provide training and
direct site assistance including  field surveys and monitoring, laboratory analyses, and health and
safety,  and risk assessment support at sites with actual  or suspected radioactive contamination.
Some of these  sites are located  near at-risk communities,  emphasizing the Administration's
commitment to protecting vulnerable communities.

EPA's  laboratories  will  continue to  support EPA  Regional  Superfund  Remedial  Project
Managers (RPMs) and  On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs),  providing  laboratory and field-based
radioanalytical and mixed waste analyses. They also provide technical services, guidance, and
standardized procedures.
                                           101

-------
Performance Targets:

EPA's radiation labs are supporting Strategic Plan Goal 1, Objective 4: Reducing Unnecessary
Exposure to Radiation through their ongoing  work.  The  program developed an  efficiency
measure that demonstrates EPA's ability to expedite processes while ensuring safe disposal of
transuranic radioactive waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP).

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$11.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$2.0) This  decrease in travel  costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and teleconferencing.

    •   (+$1.0) This is an increase for contracts to support the radiation lab work.

    •   (-$9.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Atomic Energy  Act (AEA)  of 1954,  as  amended,  42 U.S.C.  2011 et  seq. (1970),  and
Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990; Comprehensive
Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
SARA of 1986;  Energy Policy Act (EPA) of 1992, P.L.  102-486; Executive Order 12241 of
September  1980, National Contingency Plan,  3  CFR,  1980; National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)
of 1982; Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; Safe Drinking
Water Act (SOWA); Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978; Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act of 1992.
                                          102

-------
                                                      Radiation: Response Preparedness
                                                   Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                    Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$3,077.0
$4,176.0
$7,253.0
42.3
FY2010
Actuals
$2,827.9
$4,242.7
$7,070.6
41.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$3,077.0
$4,176.0
$7,253.0
42.3
FY2012
Pres Budget
$3,042.0
$4,082.0
$7,124.0
42.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($35.0)
($94.0)
($129.0)
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,
are nationally recognized radiological  laboratories that provide field sampling and analyses,
laboratory  analyses, and direct  scientific support to  respond to radiological  and  nuclear
incidents.3   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 personnel are  members of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response  Team
(RERT) and are trained to provide direct expert scientific and technical assistance in the field.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response program, will
continue to improve the level of readiness to support federal radiological emergency response
and recovery operations under the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).  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.  Laboratory staff also will support
field operations  with  fixed laboratory  analyses and provide rapid  and accurate  radionuclide
analyses in environmental matrices.4
3 Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/narel/iag.html
4 Additional information can be accessed at:  http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/
                                           103

-------
Also, in FY 2012, both 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 laboratories 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.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program also supports   performance  results in the Radiation:  Response
Preparedness program under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in
the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$97.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
        FTE.

   •   (-$5.0)  This decrease in travel costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (+$16.0) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.

   •   (-$8.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency  Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign processes and  streamline  activities in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Atomic Energy  Act (AEA)  of 1954,  as  amended,  42 U.S.C.  2011 et  seq. (1970),  and
Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; Clean Air  Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990;  Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability  Act  (CERCLA);  National  Oil  and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; 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;
Homeland Security Act of 2002; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(PKEMRA); Public Health Service Act (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.; Safe Drinking Water  Act
(SOWA); and Title XIV of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA) of 1997, PL 104-201
(Nunn-Lugar II).
                                          104

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
           105

-------
                                                                        Forensics Support
                                                                Program Area: Enforcement
                                                       Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                  Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$17,801.0
105.2
FY2010
Actuals
$15,245.3
$2,727.0
$17,972.3
101.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$17,801.0
105.2
FY2012
Pres Budget
$15,326.0
$2,389.0
$17,715.0
105.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($25.0)
($61.0)
($86.0)
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, as well as technical expertise for
Agency compliance efforts.  This work is  critical to determining non-compliance and building
viable enforcement cases. EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) is a fully
accredited  environmental forensics  center under International Standards Organization (ISO)
17025, the main standard used by testing and calibration laboratories, as recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)5.  Laboratory accreditation is the recognition of technical
competence through  a third-party assessment of a  laboratory's quality, administrative, and
technical systems.  It also provides the general public and users of laboratory services a means of
identifying those laboratories which have successfully demonstrated compliance with established
international standards.  NEIC's accreditation  standard  has been  customized to  cover both
laboratory and field activities.

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.  The program also 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.6

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Efforts to  stay at the forefront  of  environmental enforcement  in  FY 2012  include  focused
refinement  of single  and  multi-media  compliance  monitoring  investigation  approaches,
customized  laboratory methods  to  solve  unusual enforcement  case  challenges, and  applied
research  and development in both laboratory and field applications.  In response to case needs,
the NEIC will conduct applied research and development to identify, develop, and deploy new
 Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, National Academy of Sciences, 2009, available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php7record id= 12589
6 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html
                                           106

-------
capabilities,  test and/or enhance  existing methods  and techniques, and  provide  technology
transfer to other enforcement personnel  involving environmental measurement and forensic
applications. Consistent with these activities and working with appropriate organizations across
the Agency, NEIC  also will play a role in  evaluating the scientific basis  and/or technical
enforceability of select EPA regulations. Additionally, NEIC will apply its technical resources in
support of the Agency's national enforcement priorities.

In FY 2012, NEIC will continue to function under rigorous ISO requirements for environmental
data measurements  to maintain its accreditation.  The program  also will  continue to utilize
advanced technologies to support field measurement and laboratory analyses.

Performance Targets:

Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$511.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •  (-$466.0) This change reduces  resources  that support the operations  of NEIC and
       maintenance for its laboratory instruments. This reduction may defer NEIC's purchase of
       new equipment to support the Agency's criminal and civil  enforcement cases and could
       also defer maintenance on some of its current laboratory and field equipment.

    •  (-$70.0) This decrease in travel costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CWA;  SOW A;  CAA;  TSCA;  Residential Lead-Based Paint  Hazard Reduction Act
(RLBPHRA); FIFRA; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); EPCRA.
                                          107

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
              108

-------
                                    Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
                                                          Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                          Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                                  Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY2010
Actuals
$6,805.1
$20,954.9
$1,269.5
$29,029.5
46.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$1,065.0
$11,379.0
$0.0
$12,444.0
25.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($5,771.0)
($11,647.0)
($1,760.0)
($19,178.0)
-24.0
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.
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.  For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Since the events of 9/11, EPA has been designated as the sector-specific  agency responsible for
infrastructure protection activities for the nation's drinking  water and wastewater systems. EPA
is  utilizing its position within the water sector and working with its stakeholders to provide
information to help protect the nation's drinking water supply from terrorist or other intentional
acts.  Specifically, EPA is responsible for developing new security  technologies to detect and
monitor contaminants as part of the Water Security Initiative (WSI), establishing a national water
laboratory alliance, and planning for and practicing for response to both  natural and intentional
emergencies  and incidents. In FY 2012, EPA will move  to the next phase of the WSI pilot
program, focusing on support and evaluation activities. EPA also will continue to support water
sector-specific  agency  responsibilities, including  the Water  Alliance  for Threat  Reduction
(WATR), to protect the nation's  critical  water infrastructure.  The Agency will continue  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 specific milestones for  work  related  to the WSI, the Water
Laboratory Alliance,  and metric development.
                                           109

-------
Water Security Initiative and Water Laboratory Alliance

EPA's goal is to  develop a "robust,  comprehensive, and fully coordinated surveillance and
monitoring system"7 for drinking water and a water laboratory network that would support water
surveillance and emergency response activities.  The overall goal of the initiative is to design and
demonstrate an effective system for timely detection and appropriate response to drinking water
contamination threats and incidents through a  pilot program that has 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 award a total of five pilots for the WSI.

The FY 2012 request  includes $7.3  million  for necessary ongoing WSI  pilot  support and
evaluation  activities and dissemination and knowledge transfer and  $1.3 million for WATR.
Funding will  allow the Agency to provide technical support to  the existing pilots, assist in
conducting outreach efforts to migrate lessons  learned from the pilots to  the water sector, and
develop  and execute an approach to promote national voluntary adoption of effective and
sustainable drinking water contamination warning  systems. In FY 2012, EPA will complete its
evaluation  of each pilot and 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.  These guidance documents are planned to be finalized
by 2013.

In FY 2012, the pilots will conclude with a thorough evaluation of their operation, performance,
and sustainability (i.e., the practicality of a water system deploying, operating, and maintaining
the contamination warning system components, including costs and benefits). In the absence of
an actual contamination event,  much of the evaluation of the pilots will occur through reviewing,
for example, component and system availability, alarm rates, operation  and  maintenance costs,
and the success of conducting sample analysis in response to a trigger.  The Agency will begin to
execute a partnership-based outreach plan (based  on  coordination with water associations and
water systems) to promote national adoption of drinking water contamination warning systems.
This outreach plan will include the  development  of integrated tools  and training materials to
assist drinking water utilities with designing and deploying contamination warning systems.  The
tools and training materials will reflect data and lessons learned from the pilots.  EPA anticipates
conducting  this  outreach  through  a formal  partnership  with  one or more water sector
organizations to promote utility adoption of lessons learned through the pilots.
 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9 (HSPD-9).
                                           110

-------
In a contamination event, the sheer volume or unconventional type of samples could quickly
overwhelm the capacity or capability of a single laboratory. To address this potential deficiency,
EPA has established a national alliance of laboratories harnessed from the range of existing lab
resources from the local (e.g., water utility) to the federal levels  (e.g.,  CDC's Laboratory
Response Network) into  a Water Laboratory Alliance (WLA).  The  WLA focuses solely on
water and represents the water component of the EPA's Environmental Response Laboratory
Network (ERLN).  The ERLN is a network with a similar purpose as the WLA but with a focus
on analyses of all other  environmental  media. The WLA will reduce the time necessary for
confirming an  intentional  contamination event in drinking water and  speed response  and
decontamination  efforts.  Launched  in  2009,  the  WLA  is composed of  a  number  of
environmental, public health, and commercial laboratories across the  nation with membership
increasing steadily. In FY 2012, efforts will  focus on the national implementation of the WLA
through the Water Laboratory  Alliance Plan, a national plan  which provides  a  protocol for
coordinated laboratory response to a surge of analytical needs. EPA also will work with regional
and state environmental laboratories to conduct exercises, within the framework of  the Water
Laboratory Alliance Response Plan, and continue efforts to expand the membership of the WLA
with the intention of achieving nationwide coverage.  In  addition, EPA will continue to support
environmental laboratories and utilities by facilitating access to supplemental analytical capacity
and improved preparedness for analytical support to an emergency situation.

Under the WLA, EPA also will establish partnerships with stakeholders to further efforts
necessary to validate methods for contaminants of high concern for intentional contamination in
drinking water.  About 90 percent of these contaminants currently lack validated methods.

Water Sector-Specific Agency Responsibilities

EPA is the sector-specific  agency "responsible for infrastructure  protection activities" for the
water sector (drinking  water and wastewater utilities). EPA is  responsible for developing and
providing tools and training on improving security to the 52,000 community water systems and
16,000 publicly-owned treatment works.

In FY 2012,  EPA will continue working 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 the Department of Homeland  Security
(DHS) and states' homeland security and water sector officials:

   •   Conduct webcasts to prepare  utilities, emergency responders, and  decision-makers to
       evaluate and respond to physical, cyber, and contamination threats and events;
   •   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;
                                           111

-------
   •   Sustain operation of the Water Desk in the Agency's Emergency Operations Center by
       updating  roles/responsibilities, training staff in the incident command  structure, and
       ensuring adequate staffing during activation of the desk;
   •   Develop tools and technical assistance for water utilities under the Climate Ready Water
       Utilities effort,  which would enable  these utilities to  account for climate change
       consideration in long-range planning and operations;
   •   Support the adoption and use of mutual aid agreements among utilities to improve
       recovery times;
   •   Continue to implement specific recommendations for emergency response, as developed
       by EPA and water sector stakeholders, including providing an expanded set of tools (e.g.,
       best security practices, incident command system and mutual aid training, recovery, and
       resiliency)  in  order to  keep  the  water sector  current  with  evolving  water security
       priorities;
   •   Continue to implement specific recommendations of the Water Decontamination Strategy
       as developed  by  EPA  and water  sector  stakeholders (e.g.,  defining  roles  and
       responsibilities of local, state, and federal agencies during an event); and
   •   Develop annual  assessments,  as required under the NIPP, to  describe existing water
       security efforts and progress in achieving the  sector's key metrics.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports EPA's Protect Human Health objective.  Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$183.0)   This  increase  reflects the recalculation  of base workforce  costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-$9,020.07-1.0 FTE) This reduction reflects completion at the end of FY 2010 of certain
       activities associated with the five full-scale contamination warning system demonstration
       pilots in public water systems under the WSI.  EPA will  not perform research  activities
       associated with the WSI Pilot Program in FY 2012.  Other work, including support and
       evaluation of the pilots and dissemination and knowledge transfer, will be conducted with
       the resources remaining in the program.   This reduction includes $133.0 in associated
       payroll.

   •   (-$39.0) This decrease in travel  costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$700.0)  This reflects a decrease to outreach activities,  such as tabletop and full-scale
       exercises,  conducted to increase the number  of state  and  utility  labs participating in the
       WLA program.  Such outreach activities will  be reduced by half.

   •   (-$1,772.0 / -2.0  FTE) This reflects a decrease to preparedness and risk reduction efforts
       for the water sector as  these efforts ramp  down  due  to work  already  completed.
                                           112

-------
       Decreased efforts include training and tabletop exercises, technical assistance webinars,
       and conferences that directly support the water sector.  This reduction includes $266.0 in
       associated payroll.

    •   (-$224.0) This reflects a reduction  to the WSI program as  part of the Administrative
       Efficiency Initiative. This initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies
       and  reductions,  including  advisory contracts,  travel, general services,  printing and
       supplies. EPA will continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in
       both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$75.0) This reflects a reduction to general expenses and other program support areas.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA 42 U.S.C. §300f-300j-9 as added by Public Law 93-523 and the amendments made by
subsequent enactments, Sections - 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435;  CWA, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et
seq.; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. §11001 et seq - Sections 301, 302, 303,
and 304.
                                           113

-------
                              Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                    Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation

                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY2010
Actuals
$4,264.2
$37,697.9
$51,558.9
$93,521.0
176.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$30,078.0
$40,662.0
$70,740.0
170.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($3,423.0)
($11,579.0)
($12,918.0)
($27,920.0)
-3.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's Research  and Development Program's research  provides  critical support to agency
environmental policy  decisions and  regulatory  actions  to  protect  human health  and  the
environment.  EPA  research has provided effective solutions to high-priority  environmental
problems for the past 40 years.  Research enabled the  Agency  to  implement policies  and
regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries and  scales. However,
these solutions were accomplished using 20th century approaches, focusing on  the risks  posed by
a single chemical to a single target organ or species.   Such an approach limits the Agency's
ability to  address the  increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges with
solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable - solutions that meet current needs without
compromising the future.

The  Homeland Security  Research Program (HSRP) will continue to plan  and implement  a
systems-based program.  That  approach will  address  scientific  and  technological gaps in  a
community's ability  to prepare  for and recover from large-scale  catastrophic events including
chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) attacks.  When terrorist attacks  and even natural
disasters occur, sustainable  environmental  approaches  enhance the resiliency and speed  the
recovery of the communities  that are  affected.   Communities  that  have a high degree of
resiliency will be better prepared for and recover more  quickly and completely from a disaster
than communities that are not as resilient.
The  HSRP will evaluate  tools and  develop  capabilities so that cost effective response and
recovery approaches can be identified for future use by the response community, elected and
appointed decision makers, and risk managers.  Research will further state-of-the-art approaches
to address all phases of community response and recovery to ensure public and worker safety,
                                           114

-------
protect property, and facilitate recovery.  The Agency will continue to work with other federal
agencies and organizations, through collaborative research efforts, to strengthen remediation and
decontamination capabilities.
EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a federal  advisory committee comprised of
independent expert scientists and engineers—recognizes that the HSRP is both expansive and
complex as is the Agency's responsibility for responding to future terror events. The December
2008 BOSC report noted that "prior and recent reviews [by the National Academy of Sciences
and Science Advisory Board] of the National Homeland  Security Research Center (NHSRC)
have recognized this and have helped  shape the scope of the current research program.  The
NHSRC has done a  commendable job in analyzing and delineating the scope of its research
program relative to available resources."  The BOSC  reported that the program is successfully
providing utility to NHSRC clients and downstream end users.

FY 2012 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
and attacks, including large-scale catastrophic incidents, thereby enhancing the resilience of our
communities. EPA has unique knowledge and expertise related to decontamination and disposal
of contaminated materials and in protecting the nation's drinking water and water infrastructure.
FY 2012 Homeland Security Research Program funds will be used  to deliver science  and
engineering research results to EPA's Water, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Air and
Radiation programs,  among others, to better facilitate and enable their ability to carry  out the
Agency's  homeland security missions. These results include tools and techniques to facilitate
response to  and recovery from incidents involving CBR agents.  Other applied science and
technical support needs also will be  provided  to  EPA's  response  community (National
Decontamination Team, Environmental Response Team, Radiological  Emergency Response
Team, Removal Managers, and On-Scene Coordinators). For example, the program's experience
and expertise were  critical in supporting EPA's coordinated Deepwater  Horizon Oil  Spill
response. EPA's HSRP  also provides support and assistance in interactions with water utilities
to help ensure the nation's water systems are secure and drinking water is safe.

The FY 2012 request for the HSRP includes a reduction of $8.2 million  from the FY 2010
enacted budget.  This reflects a 75  percent reduction to methods development, the planned
completion of decontamination research for the Safe Buildings Program, and the reduced need
for water contamination detection tools as work reaches completion.

Decontamination Research

EPA's decontamination research directly supports the  Agency's National Response Framework
(NRF) as well as its homeland security responsibilities.  In  many  cases, the research program
also supports the Department  of Homeland Security's needs for EPA expertise in a number of
key areas including materials decontamination and disposal, threat assessment, and sampling and
analytical methods.  There are reductions  in funding for some aspects of the homeland security
Decontamination Research Program. Activities in FY 2012 will include the following:
                                          115

-------
•  Risk analysis research will  continue, at a reduced level,  to provide information that aids
   decision-makers in managing risks  associated with exposure to biological and  chemical
   agents.  This information includes the science required to develop exposure limits and clean-
   up goals.  Much progress has been made in collecting and evaluating data on the toxicity,
   infectivity, mechanism of action, fate, transport, and exposure consequences associated with
   CBR contamination. In 2012 and beyond, these data will be extrapolated to predict human
   response from exposure  to varying doses of biological organisms.   This information will
   support the development of cleanup goals for sites contaminated with biological  agents.
   Development of Provisional Advisory Levels (PALs) for additional  chemicals will provide
   health effect information for intermediate durations of exposure (hours - days). Research will
   continue to identify and fill data gaps related to risk analysis  and to  develop improved
   methods to communicate risk information to decision-makers and the public.

•  Testing and evaluation of commercially-available technologies will continue to support those
   in need of purchasing reliable equipment to  detect and decontaminate CBR contaminants
   resulting from terrorist attacks on buildings and outdoor areas.  Research will continue, at a
   significantly reduced  level,  which supports the development  and capabilities  of the
   Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN). The program has made significant
   progress in  the last several years on developing and verifying methods  for the analysis of
   chemical, biological, and radiological warfare agents.  The remaining methods development
   funding will be used to develop methods for newly identified, high  priority contaminants.
   EPA will continue this support by updating the Selected Analytical Methods (SAM) manual,
   which  identifies CBR agents and analytical  methods that are needed to characterize the
   nature and extent of contamination and to document the completion of remediation.

•  Decontamination and consequence management research will continue, at a reduced level, to
   develop and improve decontamination  and disposal techniques for the clean-up of outdoor
   areas, buildings, and infrastructure (e.g., subways, bridges,  stadiums,  and  drinking water and
   wastewater  systems) contaminated with CBR agents.  The Safe Buildings portion of the
   program will be discontinued because the vast majority of research to support cleanup of the
   interior of buildings has been  completed.

•  EPA will, in partnership with several other government entities, collaborate on a large-scale
   field demonstration of decontamination methods for  anthrax developed  over  the last few
   years. Also, EPA will work with other agencies to develop detection and analysis methods,
   and  evaluate  decontamination methods  for outdoor  areas,   indoor   areas  and water
   infrastructure for new chemicals that  may be used by terrorists.  EPA will continue to
   develop  methods  to decontaminate structures and  areas  contaminated  with radiological
   materials,  as well  as the   safe disposal of radiologically-contaminated  materials and
   decontamination residue.  EPA also  will provide  a synthesis of its work on the impacts of
   decontamination activities on sensitive materials.
                                           116

-------
Water Infrastructure Protection Research

Water Infrastructure Protection Research  provides  scientific  data  and tools  for  the Water
Program and water utilities to improve the nation's ability to protect water systems from attack
and to detect and  recover from an attack.  This research directly supports the  national Water
Security Initiative  while providing effective ways to detect CBR agents in drinking water and
wastewater systems, to contain the contamination, and to treat the water and decontaminate the
infrastructure.  EPA  has  produced  many  award-winning products  over the past few  years
designed to improve the water utilities' capabilities including the CANARY event detection
                                                    o
software that won the prestigious 2010 R&D 100 Award.

Since the Water Security Initiative (WSI) is maturing, some aspects of the research program are
reduced.

Activities in FY 2012 will include the following:

•  Support to  provide  technical  assistance to water utilities  regarding water contamination
   detection software  tools  will  continue.    These  tools  include the  Threat Ensemble
   Vulnerability Assessment and Sensor Placement Optimization Tool (TEVA-SPOT) and the
   CANARY event detection software.

•  Work will support implementation of WSI by water utilities with updates and  improvement
   to software tools that  help  place detection systems in optimal locations within the  water
   system, and to assist in detecting contamination.

•  Research will  be  undertaken  to  support  strategies  that contain contamination  (thus
   minimizing public exposure).  This work includes the development of real-time distribution
   systems models to help decision makers isolate contaminated portions of the  systems so that
   the water may be removed, and to locate the origin of the contamination.

•  Methods will  be developed to decontaminate water  and  wastewater treatment systems  to
   rapidly restore  function in a cost-effective manner.  The program also will evaluate  effective
   methods for treating and disposing of wastewater generated from decontamination activities.

•  Testing and evaluation of commercially-available technologies will continue to  support those
   in need of purchasing reliable equipment  to detect  and decontaminate CBR  contaminants
   resulting from terrorist attacks  on water and wastewater treatment systems.

Radiation Monitoring

Maintenance of the RadNet air monitoring network supports EPA's responsibilities under the
Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National Response Framework (NRF).  The network
includes deployable monitors and near real-time stationary monitors.
 http://www.epa.gov/nhsrc/news/newsl22007.html
                                           117

-------
Through FY 2011, EPA expects to install all 134 purchased monitors providing near real-time
radiation monitoring coverage for each of the 100 most populous U.S. cities as well as expanded
geographic coverage.   In FY 2012,  the  Agency will  maintain the expanded RadNet  air
monitoring network. These near real-time monitors replaced or augmented the previous 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. With the expanded RadNet air
monitoring network, average 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 after an incident.  EPA will continue  to update its fixed and deployable monitoring systems
including their communications capability across various  media. Additionally, the data will be
used by scientists to better characterize the effect of a radiological incident.

Biodefense

There is no request for this program in FY 2012.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(H72) Percentage of
planned outputs
delivered in support of
efficient and effective
clean-ups and safe
disposal of
contamination wastes.
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2010
Actual
100
FY2011
CR
Target
100
FY 2012
Target
90
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(H73) Percentage of
planned outputs
delivered in support of
water security
initiatives.
FY 2010
Target
100
FY 2010
Actual
100
FY2011
CR
Target
100
FY 2012
Target
90
Units
Percent
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.  In FY 2012, the program plans
to meet its targets of completing and delivering 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) supporting the Environmental Response Laboratory Network,  and 5) the
program's ability to provide timely quality  assured ambient  radiation monitoring during an
emergency. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal  of providing
                                           118

-------
scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities,
and ecosystems.

At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual
outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to complete 100% of its
planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and stakeholders' needs.  To ensure the
ambitiousness of its annual  output measures, EPA's Research and Development Program  has
better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring
that these programs engage partners when making modifications.

EPA is on track through its ongoing work to meet its FY 2012 strategic plan goal of protecting
public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA-regulated radioactive waste
and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$585.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •  (-$114.07-0.5 FTE) This reflects the net result of infrastructure realignments of FTE and
       resources such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general
       expenses  that  are proportionately allocated  across  programs  to better  align with
       programmatic priorities. This change includes a decrease of $66.0 in associated payroll
       and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align
       resources, skills, and agency priorities.

    •  (-$49.0) This reflects adjustments to IT and telecommunications resources.  Realignment
       of these resources is based on FTE allocations.

    •  (-$53.0\-0.4 FTE)  This  reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting
       from  expected  efficiencies in providing operational  support to  researchers.   It  also
       includes  a  decrease  of $53.0  in  associated payroll  and  reflects  EPA's  workforce
       management strategy that will help the  agency better align resources, skills, and agency
       priorities.

    •  (-$67.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •  (-$137.0\-0.3 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies
       Project (AEP),  a  long-term effort  to develop  a corporate approach  to delivering
       administrative services in the Research and Development program. This change includes
       a decrease of $40.0  in  associated payroll and  reflects EPA's workforce management
       strategy that will help the Agency better align resources,  skills,  and agency priorities.

    •  (-$133.0\-1.0 FTE) This reflects a shift from the Homeland Security Research Program
       to the Chemical Safety  and Sustainability research program  to better align resources,
                                           119

-------
   skills, and agency priorities.  This change includes a transfer of $133.0  in associated
   payroll to reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the  agency better
   align resources, skills, and agency priorities.

•  (-$586.0) This reflects  a reduction as part of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
   This  initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
   including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
   continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
   and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$119.0\+10.0 FTE) This  change reflects a shift  of resources for the Agency's water
   security  and  decontamination research activities. This also reflects the transfer  of
   extramural funding  in  the  amount of  $1,330.0 to payroll to cover the cost  of the
   additional 10.0 FTE.

•  (-$3,500.0) This reflects a 75 percent reduction to the methods development research in
   FY 2012.  The  program has  made significant progress in the  last  several years on
   developing  and  verifying  methods  for  the  analysis  of  chemical, biological,  and
   radiological warfare  agents.  The remaining methods development funding will be used to
   develop methods for newly identified, high priority contaminants.

•  (-$4,089.0\-0.6 FTE) This reduction reflects: (1) planned completion of decontamination
   research for contaminated buildings (the  Safe Buildings Program) and (2) a reduced need
   for water contamination detection tools as the Water Security Initiative  completes its
   mission  and  a  large  extramural grant to  study  microbial risk assessment  reaches
   completion. This change includes a reduction  of $80.0  in associated payroll to reflect
   EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources,
   skills and agency priorities.

•  (-$2,225.0)   This reflects  a reduction of  pesticide program resources. Affected areas
   include the improvement of disinfection capabilities as applied to the food and agriculture
   sectors.

•  (-$596.0) This reflects a reduction of resources for EPA's RadNet national environmental
   radiation monitoring network.
                                        120

-------
   •   (-$499.0) This  reflects  a reduction  in resources  for efforts to  improve national
       radiological laboratory capacity and capability. This will result in the termination  of
       laboratory capacity audits and proficiency testing of laboratories, a reduction in incident
       response radiological laboratory training, and a reduction in the publication of incident
       response radiological  laboratory guidance  documents. This  disinvestment will lead  to
       many of the nation's radiological  laboratories being inadequately prepared for a major
       nuclear or radiological incident due to  slower data generation and delay of consequence
       management activities aimed at protecting the public.

   •   (+$3.0)  This  reflects  additional  resources to  support efforts related to  enhancing
       decontamination capability and capacity.

Statutory Authority:

AEA of 1954, as through P.L. 105-394, November 13, 1998, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.  - Section
275 Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970; CAA Amendments 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq - Sections 102
and 103; CERCLA, as amended by the SARA 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., Sections 104, 105 and
106; 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., Section 241; Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. -
Sections 201, 204, 303, 402, 403, and 502; SDWA 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. -  Sections 1433, 1434
and 1442; NDAA of  1997, Public Law 104-201, Sections 1411 and 1412;  PHSBPRA of 2002,
Public  Law 107-188, 42  U.S.C. 201 et  seq., Sections 401 and 402 (amended the SDWA);
TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 53 - Section 2609; OP A, 33 U.S.C 40; PPA, 42 U.S.C 133; RCRA 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq; EPCRA  42 U.S.C. §11001 et seq.; CWA 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; FIFRA 7 U.S.C.
136 et seq.; FFDCA, 21 U.S.C 9;  FQPA 7 USC 136 et seq. Executive Order 10831 (1970);
PRIA;  FSMA,  Sections 203 and  208;  Executive Order  13486:  Strengthening  Laboratory
Biosecurity in the United States (2009); HSPD-5; HSPDs 7-10; HSPD-19.
                                         121

-------
                     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 2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$6,300.3
$593.0
$9,652.1
$1,194.0
$17,739.4
3.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$5,978.0
$579.0
$8,038.0
$1,172.0
$15,767.0
3.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($391.0)
($14.0)
($32.0)
($22.0)
($459.0)
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 (NVFEL).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide enhanced physical security for the NVFEL and
its employees. This funding supports the incremental cost of security enhancements required as
part of an Agency security assessment review.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple strategic  objectives.   Currently,  there  are  no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$15.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services,  printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
                                          122

-------
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (+$1.0) This increase supports the security needs of the NVFEL.

Statutory Authority:

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629); 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; EPAct of 2005; EISA of
2007.
                                          123

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                    124

-------
                                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance SuperrUnd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$98,258.9
$4,054.0
$152.3
$24.0
$16,498.3
$118,987.5
481.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$88,576.0
$4,108.0
$0.0
$0.0
$15,352.0
$108,036.0
481.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($8,834.0)
($277.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($1,735.0)
($11,032.0)
-21.6
Program Project Description:

High quality data in support of sound science serves as a strategic resource that supports the
Agency's mission  of protecting public  health  and the environment.  IT/Data Management
(IT/DM) programs facilitate the  Agency's  Science  and  Technology  (S&T)  programs  by
delivering essential services to Agency staff to allow them to conduct their work effectively and
efficiently.  These three themes, facilitating  mission activities through better information and
tools; improving agency work processes to promote efficiencies; increasing transparency and
innovation in the agency work processes and enabling  the work force with reliable tools and
services are reflected in the following investments.

IT/DM 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.   IT/DM provides a
secure, reliable and capable information  infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture
which  includes  data  standardization, integration and  public access.   IT/DM manages the
Agency's Quality System, ensuring EPA's processes and data  are of high quality and adhere to
federal  guidelines.    IT/DM   supports  regional  information   technology   infrastructure,
administrative  and environmental programs and telecommunications.

The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive
purposes, activities can be categorized into the following major functional  areas:  information
access; geospatial information and analysis;  Envirofacts;  IT/Information  Management (IT/EVI)
policy  and planning;  electronic records and  content  management; internet operations and
                                          125

-------
maintenance   enhancements  (IOME);  information   reliability  and   privacy;  and  IT/IM
infrastructure.  IT/IM and IOME activities are provided to the programs funded under S&T.

Resources under this program  also  fund  the Agency-wide Quality Program.  The Quality
Program is a key management system that ensures the quality of all  services provided by EPA,
including,  for example,  all of  the science and  technology underpinning  all  of EPA's
environmental work, all of EPA's data and all of EPA's documents for public distribution.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

For FY 2012, the following IT/DM activities will continue to be provided for the following S&T
funded programs:

   •   Internet Operations and Maintenance Enhancements (IOME) - FY 2012 activities in
       this area  implement and maintain the EPA Home Page  (www.EPA.gov) and over 200
       top-level  pages that facilitate access to the many information resources available on the
       EPA Web site. In addition, IOME provides the funding to support Web hosting for all of
       the Agency's Web sites and pages. The EPA Web site is the primary delivery mechanism
       for environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders and the public, and is
       becoming a resource for emergency planning and response. (In FY 2012, IOME activities
       will be  funded at $0.42 million in non-payroll funding under the S&T appropriation.)

   •   IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and  Planning - FY 2012 activities will
       ensure that all due steps are taken to reduce redundancy among information systems and
       data bases, streamline and systematize the planning and budgeting for all IT/IM activities,
       and monitor the progress and performance of all IT/IM  activities and systems.  EPA's
       Quality Program has consistently played a major role in each of these areas.  In FY 2012,
       the Quality Program will initiate a number of revisions to comply with the CIO Quality
       Policy  2106 (http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies/21060.pdf).  (In  FY  2012, Quality
       Program activities will be funded at $0.99 million in non-payroll funding and $2.7 million
       in payroll funding under the S&T appropriation.)

Performance Targets:

Work  under  this program supports multiple  strategic objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$267.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$28.0)  This decrease  in travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          126

-------
   •   (-$498.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in efforts to improve EPA's IT capabilities in
       order to support the Agency's expanding use of video conferencing under the green travel
       and conferencing initiative.

   •   (-$18.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553  et seq. and Government Information
Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C.  1401 et seq. - Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and
3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. - Sections  101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.  - Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. -  Sections 101,  102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. - Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. -  Sections  136a - 136y
and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. - Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501
and Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. - Sections 1400,
1401,  1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454  and  1461 and Federal  Food,  Drug  and  Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency  Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. - Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. - Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and
Government Performance and Results Act  (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. - Sections 1115,
1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA),  31 U.S.C. 501
et seq. - Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40
U.S.C. 1401 et  seq. - Sections 5001, 5201, 5301,  5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501  et seq. - Sections  104, 105, 106, 107, 108,  109, 110, 111,
112 and  113  and Freedom  of Information  Act  (FOIA), 5  U.S.C. 552  et seq. and Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. - Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961
and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C.  552 et  seq. - Sections 552(a)(2),
552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
                                         127

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                    128

-------
                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2010
Actuals
$310,238.8
$72,841.7
$29,896.7
$871.9
$489.4
$76,052.0
$490,390.5
410.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$324,965.0
$76,521.0
$33,931.0
$916.0
$536.0
$81,431.0
$518,300.0
408.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$9,727.0
$3,603.0
$5,000.0
$12.0
$31.0
$2,949.0
$21,322.0
-2.6
Program Project Description:

Science & Technology (S&T) resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program
are used to fund  rental of laboratory and office space, utilities, 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, safety,
and  environmental management functions,  facilities  maintenance  and  operations,  energy
conservation, greenhouse gas reduction,  sustainable buildings  programs, and space planning.
Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

 The Agency reviews  space needs on a regular basis, and is implementing a long-term space
consolidation plan that includes reducing the number of occupied facilities,  consolidating space
within the remaining facilities,  and reducing the square footage where practical.  From FY 2007
through FY 2010, EPA released approximately 250,000 square feet of space at headquarters and
facilities nationwide resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $1.1 million in S&T
dollars over this period.  The Agency's Space Strategy  efforts  continue to  pursue several long
term policy  options that could lead to  further efficiencies and  potential reductions to  the
Agency's real property footprint.  In FY 2011 thru FY 2014, EPA plans to release additional
space for more savings.  These achieved savings and potential savings partially offset EPA's
escalating rent budget. For example, replacement leases for regional offices in Boston, Kansas
City, San Francisco, and Seattle are significantly higher than those previously negotiated.  The
                                          129

-------
Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services Administration
and  other private landlords by  conducting reviews and verifying that billing statements are
correct. For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $35.66 million for rent, $20.20 million
for utilities, $10.71 million for security, $0.90 million for transit subsidy, and $2.58 million for
Regional moves in the S&T appropriation.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue 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)  134239, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management.  Additionally, the Agency will  attain the Executive Order's
environmental  performance goals related  to buildings 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 building standards.  In  FY  2012, the
Agency plans to reduce energy utilization  (or improve energy efficiency) by approximately 37
billion British Thermal Units or three percent.  EPA should end FY 2012 using approximately 21
percent less energy than it did in FY 2003.

EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, expands
upon EO 13423 and requires additional reductions to greenhouse gas emissions. EPA  will meet
the requirements of EO 13514 through:

•      Managing  existing building systems  to  reduce consumption of energy, water,  and
       materials;
•      Identifying opportunities to consolidate and dispose of existing  assets,  optimize  real
       property; and portfolio performance, and reduce environmental impacts; and
•      Implementing best management  practices  in  energy-efficient  management of  real
       property including Agency labs and  data centers.

As part of the Agency's commitment to promoting employee health and wellness, the Agency
collected data to assess its health and wellness programs nationwide. The data will be used to
establish a baseline from  FY 2010, which the Agency will use to explore options to improve
health and wellness  programs, and to develop performance  improvement targets  and  an action
plan with the goal of enhancing the overall  quality of life of EPA employees. In the interim EPA
has a short-term plan that includes the following initiatives:

•      Work with the General Services Administration (GSA) to expand health and wellness
       programs in  GSA-owned and -leased facilities.  Some options include healthier food
       choices, increasing fitness center activities, and expanding health unit capabilities.
9 Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3514/. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance', and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/. Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management


                                           130

-------
•      Enhance  outreach  efforts  to employees  to increase  fitness  center  memberships,
       registration for seminars and educational programs,  and inoculations and screenings in
       health units.

•      Establish or expand sports competitions and fitness challenges to build or strengthen our
       fitness programs nationwide.

•      Offer more health educational classes and seminars to increase employee attendance and
       participation.

Lastly,  EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy  to  eligible  applicants as  directed by
Executive  Order  1315010 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 the performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation. These measures can also be found in
the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •    (+$2,034.0) This increase reflects the net effect of rent reduction as a result of the space
       consolidation  effort, projected contractual  rent  increases, and reallocation  involving
       EPM, S&T and Superfund appropriations.

   •   (+$1,018.0) This reflects an increase in utility costs.

   •   (+$454.0)  This reflects an increase in security due to guard contract costs  in RTF and
       Cincinnati facilities.

   •   (+$2,333.0) This reflects an increase in funding for Regional moves for the Reproductive
       Toxicology Facility (RTF), which is moving to the main campus  in Research Triangle
       Park (RTF).

   •   (-$35.0)  This reflects a decrease in transit subsidy based on projected needs.

   •   (-$1,083.0)  This reflects  efficiencies  achieved  in health and safety audits, security
       systems maintenance by utilizing a Physical Access  Control  System, and preventative
       maintenance and on-site engineering support at EPA's facility.

   •   (-$882.0)  This reflects a reduction as part  of the Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.
       This initiative  targets  certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
  Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
                                           131

-------
       including advisory contracts,  travel, general services,  printing and supplies.   EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$236.0) This reduction eliminates EPA's funding for Lab 21 conference, which will
       now be fully funded from private sector resources.

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); Energy
Policy Act of 2005; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
                                           132

-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
               133

-------
                                    Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
                                                        Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$62,944.0
$3,750.0
$66,694.0
467.9
FY2010
Actuals
$62,696.4
$4,146.4
$66,842.8
470.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$62,944.0
$3,750.0
$66,694.0
467.9
FY2012
Pres Budget
$58,304.0
$3,839.0
$62,143.0
447.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($4,640.0)
$89.0
($4,551.0)
-20.4
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 for 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 at Fort Meade, MD, and an environmental
chemistry laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS.  These laboratories provide a
variety  of technical services to EPA, other  federal  and  state agencies,  tribes,  and  other
organizations.  The laboratories assist the  Agency  and  state enforcement laboratories  by
providing reference standards, analytical  methods  development, training,  and assistance with
laboratory  audits.   They develop and validate analytical methods for  risk assessment and
enforcement  projects.   The  analytical methods are available  for  use by the United  States
Department of Agriculture (USDA),  the United States  Geological Survey (USGS), EPA, and
states.  Additionally, the laboratories  perform  chemical and efficacy analyses  and assist in
investigations of incidents such as crop damage or illegal pesticide residues.

For additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppbeadl/labs/index.htm.
                                           134

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In 2012, the Agency will protect  human health  by ensuring the availability  of appropriate
analytical methods for  detecting pesticide residues in food and feed, ensuring suitability for
monitoring  pesticide residues,  and enforcing  tolerances.   This  will  be  accomplished by
developing and validating multi-residue pesticide analytical methods for food, feed, and water
for use by  other federal  and state laboratories, and EPA.  Laboratories further support the
estimation of human  health risks from pesticide use by operating the National Pesticide Standard
Repository (NPSR).  EPA's NPSR collects and maintains pesticide standards (i.e., samples of
pure active  ingredients or technical grade active ingredients for pesticides).  The  repository
distributes these standards to EPA and other federal laboratories and tribal laboratories involved
in pesticide enforcement, including tolerance ,  enforcement verification of label claims,  and
investigations of pesticide use/misuse in support of EPA's regulatory  decisions for FIFRA and
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The laboratories also perform efficacy measurement and
testing of antimicrobial  products with public health claims - for example hospital  disinfectants
and research on methods to measure the efficacy of various types of antimicrobials, including
sporicides.

EPA's pesticide laboratories provide quality assurance and technical support and training to EPA
regional  offices, state  laboratories, and other federal  agencies  that implement FIFRA.   The
laboratories  will evaluate registered products that are most crucial to infection  control (e.g.
sterilants, tuberculocides,  and  hospital-level disinfectants).   Under the  Plant  Incorporated
Protectants  or PIP method validation program, evaluation will continue  on  several  novel
molecular-based methods.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM Pesticides: Protect
Human Health from  Pesticide Risk and can be found in the Performance Four -Year Array in
Tab 11.

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.  There are  no specific  performance measures for this
specific program.

FY 2012 Change from  FY 2010 Enacted  Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$52.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-$23.0) This  reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
                                           135

-------
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (+$60.0) This increase represents additional funds to support fixed laboratory costs for
       the pesticide program.

Statutory Authority:

Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as
amended, § 408 and 409.
                                          136

-------
                                   Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
                                                          Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                              Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                        Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$42,203.0
$2,279.0
$44,482.0
301.4
FY2010
Actuals
$41,584.5
$2,285.9
$43,870.4
334.9
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$42,203.0
$2,279.0
$44,482.0
301.4
FY2012
Pres Budget
$37,913.0
$2,448.0
$40,361.0
288.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($4,290.0)
$169.0
($4,121.0)
-13.2
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." 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).11  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.12  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  at Fort Meade, MD, and an
environmental  chemistry  laboratory at  Stennis Space  Center,  Bay  St.  Louis, MS.   These
laboratories  develop  and  validate  environmental and  analytical  chemistry   methods  and
genetically modified organism Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) methods to ensure the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), EPA
11 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/ESA35/ESA35DaleOA.html.
12 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.  January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm
                                            137

-------
offices, and states have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and
in the  environment.  The pesticide 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In 2012, the Agency will support the protection of the environment by developing methods and
conducting analyses to make better informed decisions regarding pesticide exposures and risk to
the environment and by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository (NPSR) to support
federal  and  state  laboratories involved  in  enforcement  activities.  Under the PIP method
validation program, work will continue on evaluating several novel molecular-based methods.

The laboratories also will 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 allow the
program to better assess the  results generated by the registrant and submitted to the Agency,
which  is required  by the pesticide  registration  guidelines of 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 laboratories cooperate with the
Regional Offices on activities related to analysis of environmental samples for select pesticides
or other environmental contaminants related to pesticide production or disposition. Additionally,
the laboratories develop exposure  data  for dioxins,  polychlorinated  biphenyls,  and other
persistent contaminants  of environmental  concern,  to support  agency  environmental  risk
assessments.

3) Conducting product performance evaluations of antimicrobials to remove ineffective products
from the market.  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, and cotton.

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 and environmental chemistry methods for food, feed, soil,
and water on the EPA Web site. These methods are frequently the only resource available to
Regional  Offices,   state  laboratories,  and  other federal  agencies  for  current methodology
information for the newest pesticides.  The microbiology laboratory also posts and 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/).
                                           138

-------
Additionally, the  Agency responds  to approximately  90  requests per  year for  method
information. These requests primarily come from state FIFRA laboratories.

The laboratories are involved in the development of multi-residue analytical methods (MRMs),
which  are  methods capable of measuring  several similar  pesticides  simultaneously.   These
MRMs are made available to state and federal laboratories involved in residue monitoring and
enforcement activities.

The pesticides program operates the EPA NPSR, which provides pesticide reference materials to
federal and state laboratories for enforcement activities. The NPSR shipped approximately 6,000
analytical reference standards to enforcement laboratories in FY 2007 and approximately 6,500
standards in FY 2008.  In FY 2009, 5,013 standards were provided. The number increased to
6,870 in FY 2010. FY 2011 and FY 2012 standards are anticipated to be 6,500 for each year.

The laboratories also participate in the American Association  of Pest Control Officials  and the
State FIFRA Issues and Research Evaluation Group pesticide laboratory technical meetings with
state  and  industry  chemists,  responding to issues  raised by   enforcement laboratories.
Additionally, the laboratories are represented on and work through the Association of Analytical
Chemists to develop and implement consensus  methods for microbiology and chemistry.

In the area of quality assurance, the Agency's laboratories  assist state and federal  partners in
several ways. Examples include providing review of quality management plans and laboratory
projects  conducted under interagency agreements with the  Food  and  Drug  Administration
(FDA); 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  (TSM) 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 10 collaborating  laboratories working on the validation of the  TSM.  The
TSM quantitatively measures the efficacy of antimicrobials for inactivating anthrax spores.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM  Pesticides: Protect the
Environment from  Pesticide Risk and can be found in the Performance Four-Year Array in Tab
11.

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.  There  are no specific performance measures under this program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$125.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
                                          139

-------
    •   (-$15.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$59.0) This increase represents additional funds to support laboratory fixed costs for
       the pesticide program.

Statutory Authority:

Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as
amended § 408 and 409.
                                           140

-------
                                       Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
                                                           Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                               Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                         Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$13,145.0
$537.0
$13,682.0
89.7
FY2010
Actuals
$13,508.9
$505.1
$14,014.0
99.9
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$13,145.0
$537.0
$13,682.0
89.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$12,550.0
$544.0
$13,094.0
88.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($595.0)
$7.0
($588.0)
-1.6
Program Project Description:

Within the Federal  Insecticide,  Fungicide, and  Rodenticide  Act (FIFRA), the  definition of
"unreasonable adverse effects on the  environment" expands 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..."13  This  language
authorizes the emergency use program to respond in infestations along with other aspects  of the
program that enhances the benefits of pesticides.

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,14 resulting from incidents of new pests  on crops
when  exemptions  are necessary to allow non-standard pesticide use  to stem off a specific
outbreak or while progress is made towards full registration of new pesticides.  In such  cases,
EPA's  goal  is  to  complete the  more detailed  and  comprehensive risk review  for  pesticide
registration within three years.

FIFRA 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 products  that are identical or  substantially similar to
already registered  products.  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.
13 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm.

14 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.
                                             141

-------
Three pesticide laboratories provide data that are used by EPA to make informed regulatory
decisions that recognize societal benefits: an analytical chemistry laboratory and a microbiology
laboratory  at the Environmental  Science Center at Fort Meade, MD, and  an environmental
chemistry laboratory  at  Stennis Space Center,  Bay  St. Louis, MS.   These  laboratories also
validate 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 ensure that pesticides deliver intended results. 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will realize the benefits of pesticides by operating the National Pesticide
Standard Repository (NPSR) 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 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 pesticide laboratories  support the program by  evaluating analytical methods  for detecting
pesticide residues in food and  feed ensuring suitability  for monitoring pesticide  residues and
enforcement of tolerances. The NPSR also distributes analytical standards to federal and state
laboratories involved  in  enforcement activities.   The laboratories 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 are then used by the  program to estimate human health risks.  The laboratories 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  laboratories  provide  method validation  services for
genetically modified organism products.  They also develop data to support FIFRA Section 18
uses for new chemicals where efficacy  data are  non-existent (particularly  biothreat  agents,
including B. anthracis, or emerging hospital pathogens) and evaluate the product performance of
antimicrobials used to control infectious pathogens  in hospital environments.  The laboratories
develop new test methods for novel uses or emerging pathogens, including biothreat agents. The
outputs of this work provide  guidelines for efficacy data for public health claims,  guidance for
registration, and facilitate technical support and training on testing methods and procedures.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM Pesticides: Realize the
Value of Pesticide Availability and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
                                           142

-------
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. There are no specific performance measures under this
program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$4.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$3.0) This reflects a  reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending  for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will  continue its
       work to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities in both  administrative and
       programmatic areas to  achieve these savings.

    •   (+$14.0) This increase represents additional funds to support laboratory fixed costs for
       the pesticide program.

Statutory Authority:

Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),  as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)as
amended, § 408 and 409.
                                           143

-------
Program Area: Research: Air, Climate and Energy
                     144

-------
                                                      Research: Air, Climate and Energy
                                          Program Area: Research:  Air, Climate and Energy
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                 Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)



Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted
$111,449.0
$111,449.0
313.6

FY2010
Actuals
$102,758.1
$102,758.1
311.4

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$111,449.0
$111,449.0
313.6

FY2012
Pres Budget
$108,000.0
$108,000.0
309.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($3,449.0)
($3,449.0)
-4.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's Office of Research and Development provides critical support to Agency environmental
policy decisions and  regulatory actions to protect  human health and the environment. EPA
research has provided  effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40
years.  Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste
and reduce pollution in specific industries and at different scales (national, regional, and local).
However, these solutions were accomplished  using  approaches based on  the best science
available at the time and typically focused on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single
target organ or species.

Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century
environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable - solutions
that  are  designed  to meet  current  needs while  minimizing potential  human health  and
environmental risks in the future. Air quality decisions historically rested solely on the health
and environmental consequences of individual pollutants. As many air pollutant levels decrease,
however, concern  grows for potential health  and environmental effects from multipollutant
exposures.  Climate change  may be affected by,  and  contribute  to,  particles  in  these
multipollutant mixtures. A change in climate may cause changes in temperature, humidity,  and
cloud formation that can lead to the evolution of secondary pollutants (e.g., ozone and organic
compounds) and changes in pollution-causing particles. An increase in secondary pollutants  and
particle changes may  cause increased  degradation of air and water quality.  At the same time,
community traffic plans and land use decisions also have impacts on climate and air quality. A
comprehensive understanding of these  processes is necessary to inform the models used to make
air quality and  community adaptation  decisions and to avoid partial, disconnected information
that undermines sound decision making.

In FY 2012, EPA  will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by  implementing an
integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective.  This approach
will  create  synergy and should produce more timely, efficient results than those possible from
approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas.
                                           145

-------
Consistent with the Administration's science and technology priorities for FY 2012,15 the new
integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative
component to EPA's  existing research portfolio. The Agency will plan,  develop and conduct
research leveraging the diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and bridge traditional scientific
disciplines.  In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as
federal, state and  local government  agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry,  and
communities affected by environmental problems.

The  Air,  Climate  and Energy (ACE) Research Program's  integrated research approach will
provide models and tools necessary for policy makers at all levels of community and government
to make the best decisions. In coordination with other Research Programs, EPA will extend its
research to include impacts to disadvantaged or otherwise compromised communities.  The new
research approach integrates multiple science disciplines  and includes multiple users to promote
sound policy decisions as we move forward in the 21st century.

EPA will use the integrated research  framework  to  develop a deeper understanding of our
environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals. In FY
2012, EPA is realigning and integrating the work of twelve of its base Research Programs into
four new Research Programs:
       Air, Climate and Energy
       Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
       Sustainable and Healthy Communities
       Chemical Safety and Sustainability
        Proportion of
        Former Programs
        Transferring
        NEW
FY 2012 Program
         100%
        99%
          10%
         1%
15 For more information, see the Executive Office of the President memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fyl2-budget-guidance-memo.pdf
                                           146

-------
This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities and promotes the innovative use of multiple
disciplines to further EPA's mission. Research to  address  targeted,  existing problems  and
provide technical  support  will also continue, with  a focus  on sustainable  applications  and
outcomes.

This program realignment will strengthen EPA's ability to leverage its partnerships to ensure its
research is addressing the highest Agency priorities.  The following Research Programs will be
integrated into the Air, Climate and Energy Research Program:

       Clean Air Research
   -   Global Change Research
   -   Biofuels Research (within the Sustainability Program)
       Mercury Research (within the Human Health and Ecosystems Program)

The  following are descriptions  of current FY 2012 Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) activities
categorized under the key program areas:

Clean Air Research ($83.1 million)—Clean Air research provides the scientific foundation for
review and implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  In order
to better address the true atmospheric complexities of air pollution, EPA  conducts research using
a multi-pollutant source to  health outcome approach. This air quality approach will link health
and environmental impacts to their dominant sources and will provide  information for a more
effective and efficient air quality management strategy.

Global  Change  Research  ($20.8  million)—Global  Change research  provides  scientific
information to enable decision makers and stakeholders to develop the most effective policies
and strategies to respond to global change. Research will continue to improve  understanding of
how climate  change affects the Agency's ability  to  fulfill its  statutory,  regulatory  and
programmatic requirements, and identifies opportunities  within the provisions  of the  statutes
(e.g., the  Clean Air Act,  Clean  Water  Act, and  Safe Drinking Water Act) to address the
anticipated impacts of a changing climate.

The  Air,  Climate  and Energy  Program  will continue to provide  the  underlying research to
support the Agency's implementation of the Clean Air Act, which mandates scientific review of
the NAAQS as well as the evaluation of risks associated with HAPs.   The ACE program  will
also  continue to   be  an active participant in  the U.S.  Global  Change Research Program
(USGCRP), the interagency Federal effort to improve scientific understanding of climate change
and global change. 16 EPA will continue to participate in USGCRP's programmatic, assessment,
and planning activities, including the development of the National Climate Assessments.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Protecting human health and the environment from the effects of air pollution and  developing a
better understanding of climate  change impacts on natural  systems, while meeting  the demands
of a growing population  and economy,  is  critical  to the well-being  of  the nation.   As we
 5 For more information, see http://www. globalchange. gov/


                                           147

-------
investigate solutions to  reduce and prevent emissions and investigate potential environmental
implications of a changing climate, we are challenged by uncertainties surrounding the complex
interplay between air quality, the changing climate, and a changing energy landscape, and the
subsequent human health  and environmental  risks from exposure to an evolving array of air
pollutants.

By integrating air, climate and  energy research, and  in working with  the  other Research
Programs, EPA will conduct research to understand the complexity of these interactions. The
ACE  Program will  provide  cutting-edge scientific information and tools to support EPA's
strategic goals  to  protect and  improve air quality.   New knowledge  will  investigate
environmental implications of strategies to reduce emissions and sustainably adapt to climate
change.

EPA's ACE Research Program is designed to promote innovative, sustainable, and integrated
solutions to air pollution and climate change to minimize adverse impacts on public health and
the environment.  The  ACE Program also will  continue to provide responsive,  robust,  and
dynamic research in support of EPA's programs to improve public health and the environment,
increase life expectancy, and protect the most susceptible populations.

Following are overarching  research themes to be  addressed by the program based  on  ongoing
input from EPA's partners.  These research themes and questions will be independently reviewed
by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific  Counselors during the spring and
summer of 2011.

Theme  1: Develop and evaluate multi-pollutant,  regional,  and sector-based approaches  and
advance more cost-effective  and innovative  strategies  to reduce air emissions that adversely
affect atmospheric integrity.

Air pollution sources emit  mixtures of pollutants, including greenhouse gases.  Individuals are
therefore exposed to multiple air pollutants at any one  time.  Multi-pollutant  and sector-based
pollutant reduction approaches will be developed to  simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and account for the evolution and transformation of these mixtures in the atmosphere
and the effects of a changing climate. Integrated pollution reduction approaches will enable EPA
to develop and implement sustainable solutions to effectively  meet its goal to ensure a clean and
healthy environment. The ACE Research Program will:

   •   Work with experts in industry, academic  and  research  communities,  and with other
       federal, state and local partners to develop integrated strategies that reduce and prevent
       atmospheric pollution from key economic sectors.
   •   Assess the full life-cycle health, environmental and social impacts of alternative sector-
       specific strategies, such as biofuels for transportation.
   •   Develop,  evaluate, and adapt innovative technologies for both monitoring multi-pollutant
       mixtures  in the  atmosphere and  assessing source emissions for  a  range of needs,
       including community  information, compliance and enforcement, regional and  national
       assessments and air quality planning.
                                           148

-------
    •   Develop research tools that can evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution strategies at the
       local, regional and national levels.

Theme 2: Assess the impacts of atmospheric pollution, accounting for interactions  between
climate change, air quality, and water quality.

Understanding the concurrent impacts of atmospheric pollution and climate change is a critical
step in evaluating  the  benefits and sustainability of environmental  policies.  Many of the
environmental outcomes EPA is seeking to improve are sensitive to weather and climate change.
Research is needed to explain how changes in climate will affect achieving and maintaining air
pollution and other environmental goals.  Adding to the complexity is the need to understand
how air pollutants, acting in combination with each other and with stressors impacted by climate
change (e.g., temperature,  aeroallergens), impact human health  and ecosystems.   The  ACE
Research Program will:

    •   Develop methods to assess health and ecosystem impacts of exposure to multiple air
       pollutants  in different environments including polluted urban areas, indoor  environments,
       and affected ecosystems.
    •   Develop tools and methods to assess impacts of air pollution and climate change  at
       community, regional, national and international scales.
    •   Link economic, technology, air  quality, water quality, land  use, ecosystem, and  other
       models to  enable integrated analyses of atmospheric pollution impacts.
    •   Gather, synthesize and report data on past changes in relevant environmental endpoints
       and climate-related metrics.

Theme 3: Provide environmental modeling, monitoring, metrics, and  information needed by
communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Documented changes to environment and human health due to climate change are  challenging
the ability of federal, state,  and local agencies to meet their responsibilities  to  protect public
health  and the environment. EPA has an important role to play in providing information that will
help communities adapt to the environmental consequences  of climate  change.   The  ACE
Research Program will:

    •   Assess the characteristics of populations and ecosystems that are at greatest risk to the
       adverse effects of air pollution and climate change.
    •   Develop  integrated  approaches  to assess how  social and economic  factors  affect
       vulnerability to air pollution and climate change.
    •   Develop tools and  methods  that enable evaluation of adaptation  efforts  and inform
       coordinated, sustainable  responses to the impacts of climate change, in partnership with
       other federal agencies and research institutions.
    •   Develop tools to assess behavioral, social and economic responses  to  mitigation  or
       adaptation policies addressing climate change that can affect vulnerability to air pollution
       or climate change impacts.
    •   Support Agency efforts to develop and maintain a next generation monitoring network
       for ambient air pollutants, including both the NAAQS and HAPs.  In  particular, it will
                                           149

-------
       provide field validation  of available, untested and  undeployed monitoring  methods,
       refinement of outdated techniques and methods, and innovative new technologies.

Within these integrated themes, EPA will continue its research to understand air pollution near
roads, attempting to link roadway emissions with health outcomes. 17 EPA is conducting studies
in Detroit from September 2010  through 2012, in  collaboration  with the  Federal  Highway
Administration, to measure and  characterize emissions and  to understand potential exposures
associated with roadway  emissions. This  research  is  being coordinated  by  EPA  with  a
cooperative  study  conducted by the University of Michigan focusing on the links  between
emissions, ambient concentrations,  exposure metrics and health outcomes in asthmatic children
residing near roadways. Through 2012, EPA will be publishing and reporting study data. Based
on this near  roads research, EPA will refine pollution models to provide regulators, community
planners  and decision  makers with the tools  needed to assess land-use  and future  land-use
planning.  These  tools will  inform key  decisions  such as  school building locations  and
renovations.    This  research  includes an assessment of the use  of passive road barriers in
mitigating air pollution effects.

Because the  2010 Report to Congress is complete, EPA will  reduce funding for research on the
impacts of biofuel production in FY 2012.   The decrease will reduce EPA research on filling
gaps identified in the Report to Congress, while still enabling EPA planning for the 2013 Report
to Congress  as required by the Energy  Independence and Security Act (EISA).  EPA also will
reduce funding for the Mercury Research Program and discontinue research examining mercury
"hot spots"  evaluating mercury emission measurement/control technologies,  and assessing the
impact of different coals and technology configurations on coal  combustion residues.  The
program will use data already generated to produce final products and reports.

During 2012, each of the six NAAQS will be  at some phase within the review cycle: Science
Assessment, Risk and Exposure Assessment, Policy Assessment, external review (e.g., Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee review or public review), or Proposed Rulemaking leading to
Final Rule Making.  Currently, Particulate Matter and Ozone are in the final  phases of review.
The NAAQS reviews focus on individual pollutants as statutorily mandated in five-year cycles
of review. The Air, Climate and Energy research program will continue to provide the critical
science to support the review process and the  development of models and tools to support
implementation of the NAAQS.

EPA will support the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves 18 to inform investments to develop
and deploy  improved stoves. The  goal of the  alliance is to reduce the health risks of people
exposed to the emissions from  cookstoves used by the world's poor to cook and heat. Clean
cookstoves can save lives,  enhance livelihoods, empower women  and combat climate change.
By utilizing EPA's  unique expertise in  characterizing   emission  generation,  quantifying
exposures and  assessing  human health effects,  ACE will address the health, environmental,
economic, and gender risks  associated with the use of solid fuels in traditional cookstoves.

Performance Targets:

17 For more information, see Near Roads: http://www.epa.gov/nerl/goals/air/linkages.html
18 For more information, see the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves: http://cleancookstoves.org/overview/.


                                          150

-------
To be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency Science and
Technology in America's Reinvestment - Measuring  the Effect of Research on  Innovation,
Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program,  currently a pilot program for the
National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community.  STAR METRICS will
use "science of science policy" approaches to assessing the impact that federal science and
technology investments have on society, the environment, and the economy.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to
the 2010 enacted budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following
this section:

    •   (+$3,000.0)  This reflects  an  increase to help  the  Agency develop  efficient, high-
       performing,  and cost-effective monitors for  ambient air pollutants, including both the
       NAAQS and HAPs. In particular, it will  provide field validation of available,  untested
       and undeployed monitoring methods, refinement of outdated techniques  and methods,
       and innovative new technologies. With this investment, the Agency will seek lowest-cost,
       automated monitoring technologies to minimize future monitoring burdens felt by state
       and local agencies. This investment in a next generation air monitoring network supports
       the  Agency's priority of improving air quality across the nation by helping modernize
       monitoring methods and monitors.

    •   (-$36.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will  continue its
       work to redesign processes  and  streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$150.0) This reflects a decrease to the  Clean  Air Research Program and  will reduce
       source receptor  and  dose-effect research that investigates  human  exposure  to air
       pollutants and the resulting health effects. This decrease could reduce the level  of detail
       in risk  estimates that support NAAQS  regulations.    This  decrease will  also delay
       reporting for the Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study.

    •   (-$625.0) This reflects a reduction to research investigating the impacts of climate change
       on estuarine ecosystems.

    •   (-$762.0) This  reduction  to  the Clean  Air Research  Program will reduce  research
       activities that support the development and application of models and technologies used
       to understand the relationships  between  air  pollution,  ambient concentration  and
       exposures,  and assist in  the  development  of  state  implementation strategies.   This
       decrease will result in a delay to possible model improvements  that could aid state and
       regional air quality implementation plans.
                                           151

-------
   •   (-$2,200.0)  This reflects a disinvestment of research in biofuels due to the completion of
       the  2010 Report to Congress.  The decrease  will reduce EPA  research on filling gaps
       identified  in the Report to  Congress,  while  still enabling EPA planning for the 2013
       Report to Congress as required by the Energy  Independence and  Security Act (EISA).

   •   (-$2,429.0 / -3.1 FTE)  This reflects a reduction to the Mercury Research Program and
       includes a reduction of 3.1 FTE and decreased  associated payroll of  -$412.0.   The
       program will discontinue research examining mercury "hot spots" evaluating mercury
       emission measurement/control technologies, and assessing the impact of different coals
       and technology configurations on coal combustion residues. The program will use data
       already generated to produce final products and reports.

   •   (-$247.0 / -.9  FTE)  This  decrease represents the  net effect  of all other payroll  and
       technical adjustments including Information Technology reductions, Small Business
       Renovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic support
       realignments and reductions. It includes an increase of $820.0  for FTE changes as well
       as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program.  For more information
       on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the  Air, Climate and Energy
       Program.

The following transfers will integrate Clean Air, Global Climate Change, Mercury and Biofuels
Programs into the transdisciplinary Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Research Program that better
aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities.  This effort will improve the ability to
deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions
as the overall goal. This integration  reflects EPA's efforts to  collaborate  across  traditional
program boundaries to support national and regional  decision-making, thereby strengthening the
Agency's ability to respond to environmental and public health.

   •   (+$83,186.0 /  +261.8 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Clean Air  Research Program into the new, integrated Air, Climate and Energy Research
       Program, including $35,373.0 in associated payroll.  This transfer includes the net effect
       of all technical  adjustments such as  Information  Technology (IT) reductions,  Small
       Business Innovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic
       support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer
       to the Research: Clean Air Program narrative.

   •   (+$20,810.0 / +41.2 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Global Change Research Program into the  new,  integrated Air, Climate  and Energy
       Research Program, and  includes $5,521.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the
       net  effect  of all technical  adjustments such  as IT reductions,  SBIR realignments  and
       administrative  and programmatic  support realignments and reductions.  For  additional
       details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Global Change Program narrative.

   •   (+$1,204.0 / +6.6 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and  FTE resources from the
       Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program  for mercury  research and includes
                                           152

-------
       $886.0 in associated  payroll.  This transfer includes the net effect  of all technical
       adjustments  such  as  IT  reductions,   SBIR  realignments  and  administrative  and
       programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net
       effect, please refer to the Research: Human Health and Ecosystems Program narrative.

   •   (+$2,800.0)   This reflects a transfer of resources from  the Sustainability Research
       Program  for biofuels  research. This transfer includes the net effect of all technical
       adjustments  such  as  IT  reductions,   SBIR  realignments  and  administrative  and
       programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net
       effect, please refer to the Research: Sustainability Program narrative.

Statutory Authority:

CAA 42 U.S.C.  7401 et seq.  Title 1, Part A - Sec. 103  (a) and (d) and Sec. 104 (c); CAA 42
U.S.C 7402(b) Section 102; CAA 42 U.S.C 7403(b)(2) Section 103(b)(2); Clinger Cohen Act, 40
U.S.C 11318; Economy Act, 31  U.S.C 1535; EISA, Title  II Subtitle B; ERDDA, 33 U.S.C. 1251
- Section 2(a); Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; NCPA; NEPA, Section 102;
PPA; USGCRA  15 U.S.C. 2921.
                                          153

-------
Program Area: Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
                            154

-------
                                         Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
                             Program Area: Research:  Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
   Objective(s): Protect Human Health; Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted
$111,073.0
$111,073.0
427.0

FY2010
Actuals
$108,932.9
$108,932.9
407.5

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$111,073.0
$111,073.0
427.0

FY2012
Pres Budget
$118,776.0
$118,776.0
439.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$7,703.0
$7,703.0
12.6
Program Project Description:

EPA's Office of Research and Development provides critical support to Agency environmental
policy decisions and regulatory actions  to  protect human health and the environment. EPA
research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40
years.  Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to reduce pollution
and  minimize  waste in specific  industries.   However,  these  solutions were  accomplished
approaches based  on the best science available at the time for very  specific  problems,  for
example, focusing  on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species.

Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century
environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable - solutions
that  are designed to meet current needs  while  minimizing potential  health and environmental
detriment in the future.

One such novel challenge  is nutrient  pollution (nitrogen and phosphorus).  The problem of
nutrient loading and the events that cascade from it are not just a pervasive problem for aquatic
ecosystems, but also may create public health problems, both of which could be exacerbated by
climate change and changes in water quantity.  Nutrients enter and impact  every step of the
hydrologic cycle from air to land to fresh surface water to groundwater to estuaries to marine
systems. Excessive nutrient loads are currently responsible for poor biological condition in over
30 percent of the nation's stream miles and about 20 percent of the nation's lakes and reservoirs.
In addition, these  loads raise public health concerns  associated with cyanobactedal blooms,
nitrate and nitrite  pollution, and the formation of disinfection by-products in drinking  water
supplies. Solving the nutrient pollution problem and ensuring sustainable, safe water resources,
will  require engaging expertise across many  sectors and across traditional scientific disciplines.
Integrated, research is needed to  help develop improved management practices for nutrients  and
other novel water challenges in the face of competing demands for water resources.

To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by  implementing  an integrated research approach  that  looks  at problems from a systems
perspective. This  approach will  create synergy and produce more timely,  efficient results than
                                           155

-------
those possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem
areas.

Consistent with the Administration's science and technology priorities for FY 2012,19 the new
integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative
component to EPA's  existing water research portfolio.  The Agency will  plan, develop and
conduct research leveraging the  diverse capabilities of in-house scientists and  engineers, and
bridge  traditional  scientific disciplines.  In addition, research for scientific, technological, and
behavioral innovations will help ensure clean, abundant and equitable supplies of water that
support human  health  and resilient aquatic ecosystems.  Research plans will incorporate input
from  external  stakeholders such  as  federal, state and  local government  agencies, non-
governmental organizations, industry, and communities affected by environmental problems.

EPA will use the integrated  research framework to develop a deeper understanding  of our
environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals.  In FY
2012, EPA is realigning and combining the Drinking Water and Water Quality base Research
Programs into one Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program. This integration
capitalizes on existing capabilities and  promotes the use of an approach  to  further  EPA's
mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will also
continue, but with an  emphasis on applications and outcomes. This program realignment will
strengthen EPA's ability to leverage partnerships to ensure  research is addressing  the highest
Agency priorities.
           Proportion of
           Former Programs
           Transferring
        NEW
FY 2012 Program
             100%
  Safe and
                                                   Sustainable
                                              WatervResources
19 For more information, see the Executive Office of the President memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fyl2-budget-guidance-memo.pdf
                                          156

-------
The  following are descriptions of FY 2012  Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research
Program activities categorized under each program area:

EPA's  Drinking Water  Research  Program (FY  2012  request:  $52.5 million) conducts
comprehensive integrated research in support of EPA's  Water Program and regional offices'
implementation  of the  Safe  Drinking Water Act  (SDWA).   The program  focuses  on
characterization  and management of human  health  risks across the  water continuum with an
emphasis on sound scientific approaches for ensuring safe and sustainable drinking water.

The  Water Quality Research Program (FY  2012 request:  $66.2 million) 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. Research focuses 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
identification, treatment and management alternatives.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Following are descriptions of problem  areas to be addressed by the program based on ongoing
input from EPA's partners.  These research themes and questions, as well as the Agency's FY
2012 research plan, will  be independently reviewed  by EPA's Science Advisory  Board and
Board of Scientific Counselors.

Increasing demands for sources of clean water-combined with poor land use practices, growth,
aging infrastructure, and climate variability  threaten to  our nation's water resources.  Research is
needed  to inform management of our nation's waters  in an integrated,  sustainable manner that
will promote economic prosperity and human and aquatic ecosystem health.

In FY 2012, the  Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program will begin addressing
the critical science questions impacting the development and maintenance of safe,  sustainable
waters.  It will begin to address key issues  such as comprehensive water resource management,
water sustainability metrics, infrastructure life-cycle assessments, and economical and effective
management of  stressors  (e.g., nutrients, sediments, pathogens other contaminants). Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources efforts will address existing high priority water research  needs,
such as recreational water protection,  water-energy interdependences,  geologic sequestration,
green infrastructure, and hydraulic fracturing.

The  Safe  and   Sustainable Water Resources  Research  Program seeks safe, resilient and
sustainable solutions to the increasingly complex water challenges facing  the nation's regions,
states, tribes, cities,  and rural areas. Research  areas that may be investigated in FY 2012 include
potential impacts of a changing climate on  water resources,  existing  infrastructure problems
associated with built urban environments and sprawl, potential consequences of increased energy
demand and  mineral extraction  on water quality, and maintaining  and using natural and
engineered aquatic systems to fully ensure the needed capacity and quality of water that supports
the nation's range of growing demands  and uses. Safe and Sustainable Water Resources research
                                           157

-------
will  guide the national  implementation of EPA's regulatory and non-regulatory efforts by
providing information on new approaches to enable the following:

   •   Systematic protection and restoration of watersheds to provide safe and sustainable water
       quality necessary for human and ecosystem health;
   •   Sustainable water quality and  availability to support the needs  of healthy  humans,
       ecosystems, and economies; and
   •   Water infrastructure capable of the sustained delivery  of safe  water, providing for the
       removal and treatment of wastewater consistent with its sustainable and safe reuse, and
       management of stormwater in a manner that values it as a resource and a component of
       sustainable water resources.
   •   Research that informs assessing the potential public health and environmental risks posed
       by hydraulic fracturing.  In particular, EPA's Science Advisory Board recommends that
       EPA undertake five to ten case studies in order to provide an understanding of how
       potential risks may vary in the key geologic and geographic situations where hydraulic
       fracturing is or may be used.

The  new Safe and Sustainable  Water  Resources Program will take a systems approach to
protecting human and aquatic ecosystem health and protecting and  restoring watersheds for the
sustainability of the nation's  water resources. This approach will continue to include targeted
research on key priorities.

For example, in FY 2010, the Agency began outreach and investigation into a study designed to
determine whether hydraulic fracturing has  adverse  effects  on drinking  water resources in
response to  a FY 2010 request from Congress.  Work in  FY 2012 will continue to assess the
potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

Beaches  work in FY 2012 will  continue to support criteria development and implementation
guidance  regarding the applicability and use of new molecular tools.  The molecular tools
provide a more sensitive measure of waterborne pathogens that can  cause disease and allow
public health  officials to  determine  more  quickly if water  is safe for swimming.   While
immediate needs for the 2012 criteria are being met, work to support an expected five  year
revision will focus on new and unanswered questions.  Large scale epidemiology studies will be
more difficult to support with the proposed reduction, but continued development of measures of
waterborne  pathogen  occurrence and tools for  assessing illnesses related to pathogens will
remain a priority. There  will not be large scale health studies in FY 2012, but work on tools to
use in future health studies will continue.

Aging Water Infrastructure research, which began as a FY 2007 initiative, will wrap up efforts to
provide new tools for infrastructure condition assessment, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation.
This  research  also will provide improved tools  for decision-support and asset  management.
Green infrastructure work  will continue to support several regional projects.  This work will
provide better predictive tools and guidance for  selecting and implementing appropriate green
technologies.  Supporting work also will seek to link green technologies to improving watershed
health at various scales and locations. This information is important to municipal governments
for capital planning projects to meet both the current needs and future needs,
                                           158

-------
Finally, carbon sequestration research will continue in FY 2012 and will focus on mechanical
well integrity, biogeochemical and hydrologic models of the fate and transport of carbon dioxide
and  displaced  fluids in subsurface formations, and monitoring and modeling approaches for
characterizing and managing sites in support of the SDWA underground injection control (UIC)
program.

Performance Targets:

As EPA scientists work closely with the program and regional offices to develop the Safe and
Sustainable Water Resources' solution-oriented research portfolio, EPA also is developing FY
2012 measures for program managers to ensure the research is responsive to our partners' critical
research needs.  In addition, to be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans  to support
the  interagency Science and  Technology in America's Reinvestment - Measuring the Effect of
Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently a
pilot program for the National Institutes of Health. This  program is a collaboration of multiple
science agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy,  and the research community.
STAR METRICS uses  "science of science policy" approaches focusing on assessing the impact
federal science and technology investments have on society, the environment, and the economy.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 Budget structure to
the  2010 enacted Budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following
this section:

•   (+$5,966.0 / +7.0 FTE)  This reflects funding for green infrastructure research to improve
   watershed management practices and facilitate the nation's transition to more sustainable
   water infrastructure systems. The increase also includes 7.0 FTE with associated  payroll of
    $931.0. A significant portion of funds will leverage the innovative thinking by academia's
    scientists through Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants.

•   (+$4,226.0 / +5.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for research on hydraulic fracturing which
   includes  $665.0 in  associated payroll for 5.0 FTE.  Research will provide policy relevant
   methods, models, monitoring tools, and data on potential risks associated with extracting gas
   from subsurface formations using vertical and horizontal fracturing technologies. Research
   will inform key areas lacking information to provide an adequate assessment of the potential
   public health  and environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing.  In particular, EPA's
    Science Advisory Board recommends that EPA undertake five to ten case studies in order to
   provide an understanding of how the risks may vary in the  key geologic  and geographic
    situations where hydraulic  fracturing  is or may be used.   Evaluation of the  chemicals
    conducted under this investment  will provide a sound foundation  upon which to base the
    choice of safer hydraulic fracturing chemicals.  Congress has urged EPA  to  conduct this
   research, which supports the Agency's priority to protect the quality of the nation's waters by
    ensuring the protection of our aquifers.
                                           159

-------
•  (-$550.0)  This reflects a reduction to the development of best management practices and
   informing decisions associated with control of pathogens in drinking water systems.  This
   decrease will limit the extent to which the Agency can respond to the priorities defined by
   EPA's Distribution System Research and Information Collection Partnership (RICP).

•  (-$1,005.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
   initiative  targets certain categories  of spending  for efficiencies and reductions,  including
   advisory  contracts, travel,  general  services, printing and supplies.  EPA  will continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$2,000.0)  This  reflects a  decrease in Beaches research due to continued progress in
   meeting the requirements of the consent decree and settlement agreement.  Work to support
   implementation efforts through  the Office  of Water will receive a higher priority. In
   particular, as the Beaches work nears completion, human health effects efforts will transition
   to a technical support level. Research on methods and new molecular tools will continue.
   Large scale epidemiology studies will be more difficult to  support with this reduction, but
   continued development  of measures  of waterborne  pathogen  occurrence and  tools for
   assessing illnesses related to pathogens will remain a priority. There will not be large  scale
   health studies in FY 2012, but work on tools to use in future health studies will continue.
   While immediate needs for the 2012 criteria are being met, work to support an expected five
   year revision will focus on new and unanswered questions.

•  (+$1,066.0 / +0.6  FTE)  This increase represents  the net effect of all other payroll and
   technical   adjustments  including  Information  Technology  reductions,  Small  Business
   Renovation  Research   realignments   and  administrative  and  programmatic  support
   realignments and reductions. It includes an increase of $1579.0 for FTE changes as well as a
   recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program.  For more information on  these
   adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Safe and Sustainable  Water Resources
   Program.

The following transfers will integrate Drinking Water and Water Quality Research Programs into
the Safe  and Sustainable  Water Resources Research Program  that  better  aligns with the
Administration and Agency priorities.   This effort will improve the ability to deliver science
more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative  sustainable solutions as the overall
goal. This integration reflects EPA's  efforts to collaborate across traditional program boundaries
to support national and regional decision-making, thereby strengthening the Agency's ability to
respond to environmental and public health issues.

•   (+$52,547.0 /  +196.2 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
   Drinking  Water Research  Program into  the new, integrated Safe  and Sustainable Water
   Resources Program, including $25,050.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net
   effect of  all technical  adjustments  such  as Information Technology (IT) reductions,  Small
   Business  Innovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic
   support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to
   the Research: Drinking Water Program narrative.
                                           160

-------
•  (+$66,229.0 / +243.4 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
   Water Quality Research Program into the  new, integrated  Safe  and Sustainable Water
   Resources Program and includes $31,105.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the
   net effect  of all technical  adjustments such  as IT reductions,  SBIR realignments and
   administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details
   on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Water Quality Program narrative.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA Part E, Sec. 1442 (a)(l); CWA Title I, Sec. 101(a)(6) 33 U.S.C. 1254 - Sec 104 (a) and
(c) and Sec. 105; ERDDA 33 U.S.C. 1251 - Section 2(a); MPRSA Sec. 203, 33 U.S.C.  1443;
ODBA Title II; SPA; CVA; WRDA; WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA;, CWPPRA; (ESA;
NAWCA; FIFRA 7 U.S. C.  135 et seq; TSCA U.S. C. 136 et seq.
                                          161

-------
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
                          162

-------
                                            Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
                                 Program Area: Research:  Chemical Safety and Sustainability
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted
$77,831.0
$77,831.0
283.7

FY2010
Actuals
$75,221.1
$75,221.1
276.5

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$77,831.0
$77,831.0
283.7

FY2012
Pres Budget
$95,657.0
$95,657.0
292.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$17,826.0
$17,826.0
9.0
Program Project Description:

As primary support for environmental policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human
health  and the  environment,  EPA's  research has provided effective solutions to high-priority
environmental problems  for  the past 40 years.   Research enabled the Agency to implement
policies and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries. However,
these solutions  were accomplished using approaches based on the best science  available at the
time, which often focused on  more narrow issues such as on the risks posed by a single chemical
to a single target organ or species.

Such an approach  that focuses on  a single  chemical at a  time using  expensive and time
consuming methodologies is  not adequate  for providing the  information needed  to  assess the
hazards and exposure of the large numbers of chemicals in commerce. As science advances, EPA
is working to develop more efficient and effective tools for evaluating the effects of chemicals as
function of species, gender, genetics and lifestage.  EPA needs the research capability to fully
understand complex interactions and in  order to  inform policy choices to develop  more
sustainable solutions.

In FY 2012, EPA will strengthen its planning, conduct and delivery of science by implementing
an integrated research approach that looks at  problems from  a  systems perspective.  This
approach will create synergy and lead to the generation of environmental  science information
that is  more responsive to more modern public health and environmental challenges  and hence
will be of greater use to decision makers.

Consistent with the Administration's science and technology priorities for FY 2012,20 the new
20 For more information, see the Executive Office of the President memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fyl2-budget-guidance-memo.pdf
                                           163

-------
integrated research approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative
component to EPA's existing research portfolio.  The Agency will plan, develop and conduct
research in ways that bring together the expertise of a wide range of disciplines in the biological,
chemical,  physical, computational and social sciences.  Additionally, EPA will assess the needs
and priorities of the Research Program's partners in the program offices and regions, to provide
more effective and efficient  tools for evaluating  chemical  exposures, hazards and risks.   In
addition, research action plans will incorporate input from external  stakeholders such as federal,
state  and  local  government  agencies,  non-governmental  organizations,  industry,  and
communities.

EPA will  use the integrated research framework to develop a deeper  understanding  of our
environmental challenges  and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic  goals.  In FY
2012, EPA is integrating Computational Toxicology, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs),
and  Nanotechnology research, as well as portions of  Human Health, Human Health Risk
Assessment, Pesticides and Toxics, and Sustainability research, into a new Chemical Safety and
Sustainability Research Program.
                    Proportion of
                    Former Programs
                    Transferring
        NEW
FY 2012 Program
                             Endocrine Disrupting
                             Chemicals
                             Computational Toxicology
                   I 55%|   J Pesticides & Toxics

                        31% | Land Protection & Restoration

                             Human Health & Ecosystems

                       20% | Sustainability(E-Waste)
I** 1

1 <1% 1
Human Health
Risk Assessment
Clean Air
                                                           Nanotechnology (Land, HH&Eco, Air)

This  integration  capitalizes  on  existing capabilities and  promotes  the  use  of a systems
perspective to achieve EPA's mission. Research  to  address targeted, existing problems and
provide technical  support  will also continue,  with an  emphasis on  utilizing  the  integrated
approaches developed by the core Research Program.  The Research Program realignments will
strengthen EPA's  ability to leverage partnerships to ensure EPA research is addressing  the
highest Agency priorities.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:
                                           164

-------
We need chemicals to clean everything from industrial equipment to our clothes to the water we
drink and to help us provide an abundant food  supply  for our growing population.  While
chemicals contribute  to  our economic  well-being  and  our quality of life, some may also
adversely affect our health, society, and the environment.  We need new ways to evaluate and
reduce the effects of harmful chemicals  on society and the environment while maintaining our
economic well-being.  To this end, EPA has been working to reshape its research on chemicals to
ensure that we develop timely innovative, systematic, effective, and efficient  approaches and
tools to inform decisions that will reduce such impacts of chemicals.

The CSS Research Program has been working with partners from across EPA as well as external
stakeholders to identify the critical science questions that will  be addressed  under the CSS
Research Program in 2012. These research themes and questions, as well as the final  research
action plan, will be independently reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of
Scientific Counselors. Research under CSS will support  the development and applications of
tools that would contribute to the design of safer chemicals.  The Administration's science and
technology priorities  for FY 2012 stress the need  for  more multidisciplinary  research that
transforms the approaches used to address the nation's problems. This funding will combine the
unique capabilities and expertise in EPA to address the national challenge associated  with the
large  number of chemicals and products  used and introduced annually in the United States.
Funds will  support a range of science  activities, in coordination with EPA policy  activities that
will help address this issue in a systemic, integrated manner and provide for more  sustainable
solutions to environmental issues.

CSS will build  on existing  research on cost-efficient,  energy-efficient,  generic,   and  green
pathways for  synthesizing chemicals that are constituents of products  that pose potential
exposures to humans and ecosystems.  In addition,  the program will develop approaches, such as
life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies, that will demonstrate the benefits  of green pathways
when evaluated from  life cycle impacts and cost  bases. The CSS Research Program also will
develop innovative, approaches and tools that inform more sustainable solutions to the design of
chemicals. For example, EPA is developing approaches to identify and assess  the environmental
impacts of specific properties of nanomaterials contained in next-generation batteries.  These
assessment tools  will  be invaluable  to manufacturers and  will  allow them  to create next-
generation batteries that are that is both economically viable and environmentally friendly.

With  the use of nanotechnology in the consumer and industrial sectors  expected  to  increase
significantly in the future, nanotechnology offers society the promise of major  benefits. The
challenge for environmental protection  is to ensure that,  as nanomaterials are developed and
used,  unintended adverse consequences  of exposures to humans and ecosystems  are identified
and prevented or minimized.

In FY  2012,  the CSS  Program  will  conduct  research on  the  environmental  impacts  of
nanomaterials  and other chemicals from  a life cycle perspective.   Impacts to people or the
environment from chemicals can occur at any point from the extraction of raw materials to make
the chemical; to processes to create the  chemical  and incorporate it into products; through the
chemical's use; and at its end of life, when it is disposed of or recycled.  In  addition,  research
conducted within the CSS Program will  inform  chemical evaluation strategies  that integrate
                                           165

-------
specific decision needs into tiered approaches for developing the scientific information used for
risk  assessments  and risk  management decisions.   CSS will  support  the  development and
application of improved and new:

   •   Strategies and approaches for the efficient assessment and management of the thousands
       of existing and emerging  chemicals  (including pesticides, toxic  substances, endocrine
       disrupters, nanomaterials)  in commerce (i.e., knowing what to test, when to test it, and
       how);

   •   Advanced computational tools for  improving existing methods to understand inherent
       properties  and predict behaviors and impacts  of chemicals and  their related products
       throughout their life-cycle;

   •   Approaches for alternative product  formulations using green chemistry and engineering
       principles throughout their  life-cycle that lead to greater sustainability;

   •   Multidisciplinary approaches to better characterize the impact on environmental media
       and aquatic organisms of real world releases of endocrine active  compounds (including
       natural hormones, pesticides, industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals) from wastewater
       treatment plans, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and drinking water
       plants, and to develop risk management and mitigation strategies.

   •   Approaches to address issues of cumulative risk, chemical mixtures in the environment,
       vulnerability of populations, and environmental equity; and

   •   Methods to translate research findings  into  decision support tools that are useful and
       usable to regulators and risk managers, as well  as the other Agency Research Programs:
       Air,  Climate, and Energy; Sustainable Water and Water Resources; Sustainable and
       Healthy Communities; Human Health Risk Assessment; and Homeland Security.

As part of EPA's sustained support for fundamental research and the vitality and productivity of
research  universities and  laboratories, CSS will support new Science To Achieve  Results
(STAR) grants for:

   •   A Center for Life Cycle Chemical Safety,
   •   A Center for Sustainable Molecular  Design focused on the safer design of chemicals
       without endocrine activity,

   •   Innovative treatment designs and technologies approaches for mitigating EDCs and other
       emerging chemical contaminants from drinking water and wastewater treatment systems,
       and,

   •   High  throughput screens that  would improve  our understanding of the pathways  of
       toxicity relevant  to  endocrine-mediated endpoints in  mammalian and  ecological
       organisms.
                                          166

-------
EPA is developing performance measures for this program to ensure the research meets the
critical needs of partners. The key performance foci will be:

    •   Identifying and synthesizing the best available scientific information, models, methods,
       and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions, with a focus on human
       and ecosystem health

    •   Supporting the screening and testing protocols that EPA's Chemical Safety and Pollution
       Prevention Program will validate for use in evaluating the potential for chemicals to
       cause endocrine-mediated effects

    •   Developing the  scientific  underpinning related  to the effects, exposures, and risk
       management of specific individual or classes of both pesticides and toxic substances that
       are of high priority to the Agency to inform Agency risk assessment and management
       decisions.ORD is collaborating with  EPA's  Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
       Prevention (OCSPP)  to develop a workplan that will allow OCSPP to incorporate
       efficient toxicological assessment approaches into its prioritization of chemical action
       plans and other decision-making processes.  ORD meets with OCSPP periodically to help
       identify their highest  priority  science needs and ensure that the research program is
       addressing these needs in an efficient and timely manner.

The following are descriptions of FY 2012  Chemical  Safety  and  Sustainability activities
categorized under key program areas:

Computational Toxicology ($21.2 million)

Computational toxicology is the application of mathematical and computer models to help assess
the hazards and  risk chemicals pose  to human health and the environment.   Supported by
advances  in  informatics, high-throughput screening, and  genomics,  computational toxicology
offers scientists the ability to develop  a more detailed understanding of the hazards posed by
large numbers of chemicals, while at the same time reducing the use of animals for toxicological
testing.  EPA is developing robust and flexible  computational tools  that can be applied to the
thousands  of contaminants and  contaminant mixtures found in America's air, water, and
hazardous-waste sites.

ToxCast™:  EPA's Toxicity  Forecaster (ToxCast™)   is  a state-of-the-art  chemical  screening
approach  that builds  statistical and computational models that identify and forecast toxicity
pathways  relevant to human  health effects. EPA uses ToxCast™ data to develop prioritization
tools for regulatory decision making in Agency program offices. EPA  has an existing partnership
With PtlZer, as well as pending partnerships with several large pharmaceutical companies including Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and
Sanofi-Aventis.  During Phase  II of ToxCast™, these partnerships will  allow  EPA to directly  compare
ToxCast™ results with data  on chemicals already  clinically  proven to be toxic to  humans.
Completion of Phase II is planned for FY 2012. EPA will continue to use ToxCast™ data to
refine toxicological prediction  models for developmental  toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and
cancer causing chemicals.   The goal  is  to  transition to the use of ToxCast  for regulation
determination beginning in FY 2013.  In  FY 2012, EPA will continue to assess appropriate
reference  substances  for assessing estrogen, androgen, and thyroid systems and  expand its
                                           167

-------
collaborations on proof of concept investigations of toxicological pathways in the  ToxCast
program.  EPA  expects  to  award  four additional  ToxCast™  contracts that will  become
operational in FY 2012. These contracts, as well as new STAR research grants, will accelerate
and sustain EPA's activity in this area of science.

 •  Tox21: The Tox21  effort unites the Agency's capabilities with  those  of the  National
    Institute  of Environmental Health Sciences  (NIEHS), the National  Institutes of Health
    (NIH)'s Chemical  Genomics Center (NCGC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
    (FDA). Tox21 integrates  EPA's  ToxCast™ assays with the thousands of chemicals being
    tested at the NIH NCGC.21 The Tox21 library contains data on roughly 10,000 chemicals; a
    public online database (PubChem) houses the results of high throughput  screening of the
    nuclear receptors and stress pathways of these chemicals.

EPA  is making long-range efforts to leverage data from ToxCast™  and Tox21 and  other
supporting knowledge bases to develop virtual first generation models of the liver and embryo.
In addition, the "elk" study, launched in FY 2011, will provide endocrine activity profiles on an
additional  1000 chemicals for use by the Chemical  Safety and  Pollution Prevention (CSPP)
program.

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals ($16.9 million)

The EPA  research program provides direct support to CSPP's  endocrine screening and testing
efforts by evaluating current testing protocols and developing new protocols to evaluate  potential
endocrine effects of environmental agents.  EPA's research in this area also includes developing
and applying methods, models, and measures to evaluate real-world  exposures to endocrine
disrupters  and  characterize related effects resulting  from  these exposures for humans and
wildlife.  In addition, EPA develops risk management tools to prevent or mitigate exposures to
EDCs.

In FY 2012 the Agency will conduct research to:

   •   Define toxicity  pathways  by which endocrine disrupters adversely affect the health of
       mammalian and aquatic organisms;
   •   Characterize the  shape of the "dose-response" curve and its implications  for risk
       assessment, and;
   •   Develop approaches for assessing cumulative risk and methods for extrapolating results
       across species, ultimately reducing animal testing.

Additional research in FY 2012 will identify  sources of EDCs  entering the environment,
focusing on wastewater and drinking water treatment plants and concentrated animal feeding
operations  (CAFOs).  This research will explore  the extent to which these sources contribute to
environmental releases  of endocrine active compounds, examine the  impact of these compounds
on aquatic  organisms, and develop improved technologies that can be applied to reduce harmful
endocrine active compound levels. For example, technological advances in the field  of green
 1 Collins et al., 2008, Science; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5865/906.pdf


                                          168

-------
engineering will enable chemicals to be manufactured without endocrine activity.  Innovative
and cost-effective technologies will advance the assessment and management of environmental
endocrine disrupters and other emerging contaminants of concern and strengthen the Agency's
ability to  protect human health and wildlife. Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants will
complement these FY 2012 intramural research activities.

The  limitations  of  current tools  and  approaches—and  the number of chemicals to assess—
challenge the nation's efforts to make chemicals use environmentally sustainable (i.e.,"greener").
As a modern  society, the United States produces tens of thousands of chemicals and millions of
products to enhance our productivity,  comfort, and well-being.  EPA's mission is to safeguard
human health and the  environment, including responsibility for  assessing and managing risks
from chemicals over their life cycle. Current regulatory decisions to control the use of specific
chemicals are based on a wide range of tools and information that represent the best available
science; however, these tools are  unable to handle the large number of chemicals currently in
commerce. Additionally, the available tools have failed to fully address complex aspects of risk,
such as the impact of life-stage vulnerability, genetic susceptibility, disproportionate exposures,
and cumulative risk.  New computational,  physico-chemical, and biological science tools are
rapidly developing that will transform the way risks of chemical products are evaluated.  Broadly
applicable, predictive,  high-throughput tools will be combined  using a  systems approach to
integrate toxicity and exposure pathways in the context of the life cycle of the chemical, as well
as addressing the long standing need to assess environmentally relevant mixtures.

By formally integrating its chemicals research, EPA will advance the science in the sustainable
development, use, and assessment of chemicals by developing and applying integrated chemical
evaluation strategies and  decision-support tools.   Such new scientific approaches are needed for
the safer use,  assessment, and management of chemicals.  Currently, there are nearly 150,000
chemicals registered in the European REACH Program and over 84,000 chemicals on the Toxic
Substances Control Act  (TSCA) inventory,  and each  year  about  1,000 new chemicals  are
introduced into commerce. EPA is developing innovative, high-throughput tools that are capable
of screening thousands  of chemicals in a day.  By developing this technology, EPA will have the
science and tools needed to make evaluations more quickly and cost-effectively.

In 2012,  additional funding  will support  grants to  academia  through the Agency's STAR
Program, complementing the intramural research effort on EDCs. This research will allow for an
acceleration of the latest state-of-the-art technologies and innovations to advance the assessment
and management of environmental endocrine disrupters and other  emerging contaminants of
concern.

EPA also will continue its ongoing investment in next-generation computational toxicology tools
to speed and facilitate implementation  of the Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
(EDSP). The application of these tools will  introduce a more efficient approach to identifying
potential endocrine disrupters and  apply this information across the life cycle of a chemical. This
research is critical to help the Agency  meet its priority of strengthening chemicals management
and risk assessment, as well as bolstering ongoing efforts to  quickly screen the large universe of
known chemicals in commerce today for potential to interact  with the endocrine system.
                                           169

-------
There are three distinct drivers for ORD's Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program:
         The need to tailor data generation  and evaluation approaches to support varying
         decisions. Rapid and efficient risk assessment requires intelligent testing approaches
         that apply broad,  predictive approaches, including  those that use high-throughput
         tools, to integrate toxicity  and  exposure pathways using  systems approaches and
         consideration of the entire chemical life cycle. The goal of this Research Area of CSS
         is to develop and  provide Integrated Evaluation tools and approaches for providing
         context relevant answers to issues of chemical safety assessment. For example, some
         decisions only need screening-level assessments to identify within a large number of
         chemicals a small  number which may cause concern. Using the experience gained in
         the ToxCast™ program, the CSS  program will  develop non-animal and  high-
         throughput tests targeted at common adverse health effects induced by chemicals,
         including birth defects,  reproductive impairment, immunological  and  neurological
         disorders, cancers  and impacts on wildlife population structures. Research in these
         areas will inform assessments and decision making on impacts to humans and wildlife
         at the individual and population levels.  Although the emphasis of this research area is
         on developing  the scientific knowledge required  to develop  and refine tools and
         models, the testing and evaluation of these tools will be an integral  component of the
         research.

   •   The need to more efficiently and effectively assess chemical risks and identify what to  do
       about them.
         In support of Goal 4 of the EPA  Strategic Plan, which calls for reducing chemical
         risks, EPA research must integrate  efforts  to improve the next-generation of risk
         assessment  and risk management  approaches.  New approaches will ensure faster,
         more efficient, and  more  sustainable  decisions with reduced  uncertainty for  both
         legacy and new chemicals. New assessment and management methods will support a
         broad array of decisions,  ranging from screening and prioritization to major regulatory
         decisions for humans and wildlife.  Using tools and  approaches from the first activity
         area—such as toxicogenomic methods,  structure-activity relationships that are better-
         informed by inherent properties information, and LCA methods—the new assessment
         and management methods developed  in this activity will incorporate data on chemical
         inherency, exposure, and hazard. These  new  assessment and  management methods
         also will incorporate information from life cycle assessment and other methodologies
         that can provide more realistic and environmentally  relevant assessments than simply
         focusing on a single chemical without  considering its environmental context.  These
         new methods must incorporate the means to assess  vulnerabilities from inherent and
         extrinsic factors that lead to differential susceptibilities, and,  therefore, can inform
         community and environmental justice mandates being planned in the Sustainable and
         Healthy Communities Program for assessing and mitigating environmental impacts.

   •   The need to focus on  the highest-priority chemicals-related problems facing EPA and the
       nation, so that research remains relevant to the Agency's mission.
         Even as the Chemicals Research Program provides the foundation for a transformation
         in the current  business  practices  for chemical management,  it is necessary to  be
                                          170

-------
         mindful  that  there  will  be time-critical  research  needs for fulfilling  regulatory
         mandates.  EPA researchers will engage  Agency partners on  an annual basis and
         determine the types  of research needed to directly support key regulatory decisions.
         This year, for instance EPA is working in the key area of assessing cumulative risks of
         children's exposure to insecticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in schools.
         This  activity will, therefore, be focused  on  how to incorporate into the integrated
         evaluation strategy those methods, models, and data that address the highest priority
         needs as determined by  regular discussions between  the  senior managers of the
         Chemicals Research Program and  those of the  EPA  partner offices  and  other
         stakeholders. By developing approaches to generating and using data that are  fit to
         particular decision contexts (some decisions require more data, others less),  EPA
         program offices will  be better able to meet their deadlines.

The research and development products from EPA's new Chemical Safety and  Sustainability
(CSS) Research Program will benefit the regulation and use of existing pesticides  and industrial
chemicals and enhance green chemistry and engineering opportunities for the design, production,
and use of both new and existing chemicals.  CSS' research products also will be used by EPA
programs and other decision makers to  support community level  decisions by providing  tools
and data used by  EPA's Sustainable and Healthy  Communities  Research Program  for  those
contaminants of highest priority and concern to the community, considering susceptibilities and
exposures of the  most vulnerable  populations.   Better approaches to chemical  testing and
assessment also will inform air toxics- and drinking water-related national, regional  and  local
decision making,  as well as  decisions  on waste management, remediation,  and emergency
response.   Decision makers need  targeted,  credible, and usable information  to  inform  their
decisions, and the CSS Research Program is focused on developing approaches that can provide
such information in a timely manner.

CSS will build upon existing EPA research in chemical management and extend  efforts to
develop innovative, approaches and tools that inform more sustainable solutions to the design
and management of chemicals throughout their life cycle.  The  following illustrates the key
elements of the program and demonstrates our  central focus on  developing intelligent and
integrated evaluation strategies that support context-relevant assessments.
                                           171

-------
                                      CSS Linkages
                            Chemical/Material/Product Decision Context
                    NEW
                    Chemicals
                ORD Contributions:
                Approachesthat inform
                greener and safer
                chemical synthesis and
                use, includingevaluation
                of alternatives.
 Intelligent
 Testing,
considering
 Inherency
                     EXISTING
                     Chemicals
ORD Contributions:
Improved approaches for
assessing environmental
impacts and how to
preventer manage such
impacts.
                                       Context-Relevant
                                         Assessment
Schematic of linkages between integrated evaluation strategies,  context-relevant assessments, and decision
support.

Under the CSS Program, development  of enhanced chemical screening and prioritizing testing
approaches for smarter  context-relevant  chemical assessment and  management will not only
directly support regulation of existing pesticide and industrial chemicals, but also enhance green
chemistry opportunities for the design and use of new chemicals.  This program also will support
community-level  decision making specific to those contaminants  of highest priority and concern
to individual localities and communities. For example, better approaches to chemical testing and
assessment also  will lead to better air toxics and drinking water-related  regional and  local
decision making.

Importantly, these tools  can be used by EPA Program and regional offices and stakeholders to
significantly increase risk information  available for individual chemicals and environmentally
relevant mixtures and provide a practical context for effective risk prevention through  safer
product development and management for those chemical uses that pose unacceptably high risks.

The need  for green chemistry research  and ensuring safer chemicals in products also has been
highlighted in recent chemicals legislation under consideration by Congress, such as the "Safe
Chemicals Act of 2010."  Proposals include a revised  policy  to  assist in renewing  the
manufacturing  sector  of the  United States  by spurring innovations in green chemistry;  the
development of a scientifically and technically trained green chemistry workforce in the United
States; approaches to inform and engage communities about green chemistry; and a network of
EPA-funded green chemistry and engineering centers, some funded by EPA, which would
support the development and adoption of safer alternatives to harmful chemical substances.
                                            172

-------
Additional funding also will support E-waste/E-design research to improve the sustainability of
electronic materials. EPA research in this area analyzes the factors that drive a chemical effects
and exposures, over the chemical's life cycle; knowledge gained through this research will allow
those who design, use, and regulate chemicals to develop assessments and management methods
that reduce negative impacts from the manufacture, use, and disposal or  recycling of chemicals
and products that contain them. .

In planning and implementing the new CSS  Program, EPA program and regional offices have
worked with EPA's Office of Research and Development to identify and  address critical science
questions in order to formulate the CSS Research Program. In addition, EPA will collaborate
with multiple federal and non-government stakeholders, particularly those interested in chemical
safety.

Performance Targets:

To be  accountable to  the American taxpayers, EPA will support the interagency Science and
Technology in America's Reinvestment - Measuring the  Effect of Research on Innovation,
Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently in a pilot phase for the
National  Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the
Office  of Science and Technology Policy, and the research  community.  STAR METRICS will
use "science of science policy" approaches to assess the impact Federal science and technology
investments have on society, the environment, and the economy.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in  Thousands):

The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 Budget structure to
the 2010 enacted  budget and are included in the transfers from the source programs following
this section:

   •   (+$7,000.0) Additional funding will  support grants to academia through the Agency's
       STAR Program, complementing the intramural research effort on endocrine disrupting
       chemicals  (EDCs). This research will  allow for an acceleration of the latest state-of-the-
       art  technologies and innovations  to advance  the assessment  and  management  of
       environmental endocrine disrupters and other emerging contaminants of concern.

   •   (+$5,434.0 / +0.9 FTE) This reflects an increase for a new green chemistry and design
       for the environment initiative and includes associated payroll of $120.0.  It includes
       $1,000.0  for  E-waste/E-design  research to improve  the  sustainability of electronic
       materials.  The proposed  research would develop new scientific information and tools
       that will lead to the development of safer chemicals, including nanomaterials. Funds will
       be used to integrate  data from multiple scientific disciplines and sources into innovative
       user friendly decision tools, databases, and models  for use by environmental decision-
       makers.  This research will spur innovations in green chemistry as  well as to help develop
       a  scientifically and technically trained green chemistry workforce, approaches to inform
       and engage communities about green chemistry, and a network of green  chemistry and
                                          173

-------
       engineering  centers to support the development  and adoption of safer alternatives to
       chemical substances.

    •   (+$2,000.0)  This reflects an increase for next-generation computational toxicology tools
       to speed and facilitate implementation of the Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening
       Program (EDSP). The application of these tools will introduce a more efficient approach
       to identifying potential  endocrine  disrupters and  apply this information across the life
       cycle of a chemical.  This  research is  critical  to  help  the Agency meet its priority of
       strengthening chemicals management and risk assessment.

    •   (-$750.0) This reflects a reduction to the  nanotechnology research that would result in a
       delay of material properties and life-cycle assessment research  in using  new  energy
       applications, such as next-generation lithium-ion batteries, as case  studies for developing
       LCA approaches for nanomaterials. This reduction also will delay FY 2012 commitments
       made to the international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to
       support development  of non-animal test methods for nanomaterials, in particular for
       carbon nanotubes and  silver nanoparticles.

    •   (-$1,032.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending  for  efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its  work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$1,377.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reflects a reduction to research supporting the development of
       scientific tools  for biotechnology and includes a  reduction of 0.9 FTE with decreased
       associated payroll of -$120.0. The program will reduce research into refining the use of
       remote sensing  as a tool for the management of insect resistance in genetically modified
       crops,  also  known as  Plant Incorporated Pesticides  (PIP)  crops.  The program  has
       completed research on decision  support systems to identify insect infestations that would
       indicate the development of insect resistance.

    •   (-$1,500.0) This reflects a  reduction to human health research on screening assays  and
       predictive toxicology approaches.

    •   (+$8,051.0 / +9.0 FTE) This increase represents  the net effect of all  other payroll  and
       technical adjustments  including  Information  Technology  reductions, Small Business
       Renovation  Research realignments  and  administrative  and programmatic  support
       realignments and reductions. It  includes an  increase of $4,815.0 for FTE changes as well
       as a recalculation of base costs for existing  FTE in this program.   For more information
       on these adjustments, refer to  the programs integrating into the  Chemical Safety  and
       Sustainability Program.

The following  transfers  will integrate  Computational Toxicology,  Endocrine Disrupting
Chemicals, and Nanotechnology research, as well as portions of Human Health, Human Health
Risk Assessment, Pesticides  and Toxics, and Sustainability research, into a effort that better
                                           174

-------
aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities.  EPA expects this effort will improve the
ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable
solutions  as  the  overall goal.  This integration reflects EPA's  efforts  to  collaborate across
traditional  program  boundaries to support  national and  regional  decision-making,  thereby
strengthening the Agency's ability to respond to environmental and public health issues.

    •   (+$31,025.0 / +100.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program into the  new, integrated Chemical
       Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $12,606.0 in associated payroll.
       This transfer includes the net effect  of all technical adjustments such as Information
       Technology (IT) reductions, SBIR  realignments and administrative and programmatic
       support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer
       to the Research: Human Health and Ecosystems program narrative.

    •   (+$21,211.0 /  34.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Computational Toxicology Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety
       and Sustainability  Research Program, including  $4363.0 in associated  payroll.   This
       transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR
       realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions.
       For additional details on this  net effect, please refer to  the Research:  Computational
       Toxicology program narrative.

    •   (+$16,888.0 / +46.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Endocrine Disrupters  Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and
       Sustainability Research Program, including $5,847.0 in associated payroll. This transfer
       includes  the  net effect  of all  technical adjustments  such as  IT reductions,  SBIR
       realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions.
       For additional  details on  this net  effect,  please  refer  to  the Research:  Endocrine
       Disrupters program narrative.

    •   (+$15,043.0 / +77.1FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Pesticides and Toxics Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and
       Sustainability Research Program, including $10,023.0 in associated payroll. This transfer
       includes  the  net effect  of all  technical adjustments  such as  IT reductions,  SBIR
       realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions.
       For additional details on this  net effect, please refer to  the Research:  Pesticides and
       Toxics program narrative.

    •   (+$5,440.0 / +1.9 FTE)  This reflects  a transfer of dollar and FTE resources  associated
       with nanotechnology  and E-waste/E-design research from the Sustainability Research
       Program into the new, integrated Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program,
       including  $126.0 in associated payroll.  This transfer includes the net effect  of all
       technical adjustments  such as IT reductions, SBIR realignments and administrative and
       programmatic  support realignments and reductions.  For  additional details on  this net
       effect, please refer to the Research: Sustainability program narrative.
                                           175

-------
   •   (+$4,215.0 / +25.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program into the new, integrated Chemical
       Safety and Sustainability  Research Program, including  $3,324.0 in associated payroll.
       This transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions,
       SBIR  realignments  and administrative and programmatic  support realignments  and
       reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land
       Preservation and Restoration Program narrative.

   •   (+$1,708.0 / +6.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Human Health Risk Assessment Research Program into the  new,  integrated Chemical
       Safety and Sustainability Research Program, including $808.0 in associated payroll.  This
       transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as  IT reductions, SBIR
       realignments and administrative  and programmatic support realignments and reductions.
       For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Human Health Risk
       Assessment program narrative.

   •   (+$127.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Clean
       Air Research Program into  the new,  integrated  Chemical  Safety and  Sustainability
       Research Program, including  $127.0 in associated payroll. This transfer includes the net
       effect  of all  technical adjustments such  as  IT reductions,  SBIR realignments  and
       administrative and programmatic support realignments  and reductions. For additional
       details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Clean Air program narrative.

Statutory Authority:

CAA,  Sec. 103, 104 &  154; CCA,  40 U.S.C 11318;  CERCLA; Children's Health Act; 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, 15 U.S.C. 750; CWA, Sec. 101 - 121;
Economy  Act, 31 U.S.C 1535; ERDDAA,  42 U.S.C. 4361-4370; FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 346;
FIFRA; FQPA; Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, Section 102; PPA, 42 U.S.C.  13103; RCRA; SOW A, 42 U.S.C.; TSCA,
Section 10, 15, 26 U.S.C.
                                          176

-------
                                                        Human Health Risk Assessment
                                Program Area: Research:  Chemical Safety and Sustainability
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                     Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$42,899.0
$3,404.0
$46,303.0
182.5
FY2010
Actuals
$41,516.4
$3,169.1
$44,685.5
216.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$42,899.0
$3,404.0
$46,303.0
182.5
FY2012
Pres Budget
$42,400.0
$3,342.0
$45,742.0
195.8
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($499.0)
($62.0)
($561.0)
13.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's Research and Development program provides critical support to Agency environmental
policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment.   EPA
research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40
years.  Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste
and reduce pollution in specific industries. However, these solutions were accomplished using
approaches based on the best science available at the time. In some cases, this resulted in a more
limited focus, for example, focusing on the risks  posed by a single chemical to a single target
organ or species.

Now, as science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century
environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable - designed
to meet current needs while minimizing  potential health and environmental detriment  in the
future. The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Program will continue to provide the risk
assessments necessary to guide EPA's actions to protect public health and the environment.  The
program generates health assessments that are used extensively by EPA program and  regional
offices, and other parties to develop regulatory standards for environmental contaminants  and to
manage cleanups.   The  HHRA Program will continue to  evolve to meet today's complex
environmental challenges, developing multi-pollutant science assessments for health and climate
effects (as  called for by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and other
scientific reviews such as the 2004 NAS report on Air Quality Management).

Three complementary areas comprise the HHRA Program:

    1) The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other priority health assessments,
   2) Risk assessment guidance, methods, model development, and
   3) Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) of criteria air pollutants.

   IRIS and other health hazard assessments: EPA's HHRA Program prepares peer reviewed,
   qualitative and quantitative health hazard assessments on environmental pollutants of major
   relevance to EPA's regulatory mandates.  EPA program and  regional  offices use these
                                          177

-------
   assessments to support their decision-making. The Agency disseminates the assessments to
   the public on the IRIS Internet database.22  EPA and the risk assessment/risk management
   community consider IRIS the  premier source of hazard and dose-response information for
   environmental pollutants.   Currently there  are  more than 550  health hazard assessments
   available through IRIS.

   Methods,  Models and Approaches to Improve Risk  Assessment  Science:   The risk
   assessment/risk management community needs approaches, methods, and models to enhance
   the quality  and  objectivity of assessments  through  the incorporation of  contemporary
   scientific advances. The HHRA Program often uses these innovations in the development of
   IRIS  assessments and IS As.  In addition,  they often support decision-making  by EPA's
   program and regional offices.   These scientific  products receive external peer review, and
   then EPA disseminates them through the published literature and EPA web sites.

   Integrated Science Assessments: Congress requires that EPA regularly summarize the state-
   of-the-science for criteria air pollutants—ozone,  particulate matter, sulfur and nitrous oxides,
   carbon monoxide, and lead—to assist EPA's Air and Radiation Program in determining the
   National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  These ISAs (formerly Air Quality
   Criteria Documents) are major risk assessments that undergo rigorous external peer review
   by the CASAC.

In FY 2008, an evaluation by EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a federal advisory
committee comprised of independent expert scientists and engineers—concluded that the HHRA
Program  "has been  highly  responsive to the  needs  of the program  offices  and  regions,"
producing products that are critical to EPA's  regulatory mission and form the foundation for
regulatory decisions  and policies.  This  prospective and retrospective review  evaluated the
program's relevance, quality, performance, and  scientific leadership. The evaluation  found that
the program is making substantial  and satisfactory progress; has clearly defined milestones; and
provides  additional essential support to EPA programs to respond  to unscheduled emergency
needs. In July 2010, the BOSC reviewed the mid-cycle report on  the progress  of the HHRA
program  in implementing its  previous recommendations. The  BOSC  affirmed its previous
evaluation of the relevance of the program and noted significant progress on its previous
recommendations.  EPA is using  the BOSC's  evaluation and recommendations to  help  plan,
implement, and strengthen the program over the next five years.

FY 2012  Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA requests $27.1  million to continue to develop IRIS and other health hazard
assessments.  EPA will continue to implement and to ensure the  program effectively meets the
needs of EPA,  the federal government and the American  public.  The program will make
significant  progress  on health hazard  assessments of high priority chemicals  (e.g.  dioxin,
methanol, cumulative phthalate assessment, benzo-a-pyrene, Libby asbestos cancer assessment,
and PCB  non-cancer assessment), completing work for interagency science consultation, external
 Available at: http: //www.epa. go v/iris.
                                          178

-------
review, or posting on the IRIS web page.23  The IRIS program will expand intrinsic scientific
knowledge and expertise in refinement of IRIS assessments.

EPA will continue to develop Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) and other
health hazard assessments to support program and regional decision-making.  EPA will respond
with science  assessment  support on  chemical contaminant issues requiring quick action and,
ultimately, quick decisions  and solutions (e.g., Katrina, the World Trade Center disaster and
Deepwater Horizon oil spill). Responding to these types of issues is a key part of EPA's mission
to protect human health and  the environment and corresponds with a BOSC recommendation.

EPA requests $5.5 million  in FY 2012 to continue to be a leader in the development of risk
assessment approaches,  methods,  and  models to  enhance  the  quality and objectivity  of
assessments through  the incorporation of contemporary scientific advances.  EPA will continue
to develop approaches for applying mode of action in risk assessment and improve quantification
of health risks, such as Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic and Biologically Based Dose
Response modeling,  as well as characterizing environmental exposure and risk to susceptible
populations.

EPA will continue implementation of Health and  Environmental Research Online (HERO) to
support  a more  continuous process to  identify,  compile, characterize,  and prioritize new
scientific studies for human health  and ecological assessment  development.   HERO lends
transparency to the process  of assessment development by allowing access to the data used for
scientific decisions.

In addition, EPA requests $9.8 million  continue to develop ISAs of criteria air pollutants, as a
mandated  prerequisite to EPA's review  of  the NAAQS  and effectively meet court ordered
deadlines to  provide these  assessments.   The ISAs provide  important scientific  analyses in
support of many of EPA's important rulemakings.   In FY 2012, the  program will release final
ISAs for ozone  and  lead 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.  The HHRA Program also will begin
exploring multi-pollutant assessment approaches as called for by the 2008 CASAC consultation
on EPA's draft plan for review of the Primary NAAQS for Carbon Monoxide and the 2004 NAS
report on Air  Quality Management.

As  part of EPA's effort to integrate research efforts  to deliver  more innovative, sustainable
solutions to  environmental  problems, HHRA's next  generation risk assessment research is
moving into the Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program.  Within this integrated
program, EPA will  advance risk assessment approaches by incorporating knowledge derived
from recent advances in molecular biology, systems biology and gene-environment interactions
in human disease. EPA expects this effort will result in more comprehensive, timely approaches
for assessing  potential environmental impacts, and new approaches for preventing future  risks
resulting from chemical exposure.
 3 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/


                                          179

-------
This new effort is complementary to HHRA and continued investments in FY 2012 will allow
the program to make significant progress toward its long-term goals of providing state-of-the-
science for health hazard assessments.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(H83) Percentage of
planned outputs
delivered in support of
HHRA Technical
Support Documents.
FY 2010
Target
90
FY 2010
Actual
100
FY2011
CR
Target
90
FY 2012
Target
90
Units
Percent
EPA uses performance measures for this program to manage and improve the development of
risk assessments to support EPA decision-making.  These outcomes support the achievement of
EPA's Strategic Plan goals.  At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in
meeting planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's research  plan).  In addition, to be
accountable to  the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency  Science  and
Technology in  America's Reinvestment—Measuring the Effect of Research on  Innovation,
Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program,  currently in a pilot phase for the
National Institutes of Health.  This  program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community. STAR METRICS will
use "science of science  policy" approaches  to assess the impact of federal  science  and
technology investments on society, the environment, and the economy.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (+$987.0 / +0.3 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments  of infrastructure FTE and
   resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
   that are proportionately  allocated  across  programs to  better  align  with programmatic
   priorities.

•  (+$384.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•  (+$255.0)  This  represents  a  restoration  of  resources transferred to the  Research:
   Sustainability Program to support Small  Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR,
   EPA  is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to  small businesses to
   develop and commercialize new environmental technologies.  After the FY 2012 Budget is
   enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirements is known, FY 2012 funds will
   be transferred to the SBIR Program.

•  (-$70.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint
   by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          180

-------
•  (-$104.0)   This  reduction  reflects  efficiencies  from  several  agencywide  Information
   Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk
   standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide.  Increased mandatory costs for
   telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE may offset savings in individual
   areas.

•  (-$126.0 / +14.0  FTE) This net FTE increase supports development of Integrated Science
   Assessments (ISAs) and strengthens the Agency's work on  addressing  risk assessment
   methods and includes associated payroll of $1,862.0.  In addition, $1,988.0 in extramural
   funds is redirected to payroll to support these risk assessment FTE.

•  (-$190.0 / -1.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting
   from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers in the HHRA
   Research Program.  It also includes a reduction of programmatic FTE that reflects EPA's
   workforce management strategy that will help the  Agency better align resources, skills and
   Agency priorities.

•  (-$311.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the government-wide Administrative Efficiency
   Initiative.   This  initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies  and
   reductions, including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA
   will continue its work to redesign  processes and streamline activities in both administrative
   and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$416.0 / -1.1 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies
   Project (AEP), EPA's  long-term effort to  develop a  corporate  approach to delivering
   administrative services.   This will  not have programmatic impacts.  This change includes a
   decrease of $146.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy
   that will help the agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.

•  (-$418.0 / -0.9 FTE) This decrease  reflects a  reduction of resources in  support of risk
   assessment research and includes decreased associated payroll of $120.0.  It will delay some
   work addressing benchmark dose software updates.

•  (-$490.0 / +2.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction to extramural resources for science associated
   with Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models and the statistics workgroup
   within the HHRA Program.  This reduction will  limit our capacity to contract out expert
   external  support for PBPK and statistical support, but is partially offset by an increase of 2.1
   FTE and associated payroll of $279.0.

The following transfer is based on  a  comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to the
source programs and is included in the 2010 enacted budget. The changes above,  including the
Administrative Efficiency Initiative  reduction,  incorporate changes for the  portion of the
program being transferred.

•  (-$1,708.0 / -6.5 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for NexGen risk
   assessment approaches to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program including
                                           181

-------
   $808.0 in associated payroll. The integration of efforts under this new program will provide
   for more effective and efficient risk assessments and support the Agency priority for assuring
   the safety of chemicals.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C.  7403  et seq.  -  Sections 103, 108, 109, and  112;  CERCLA
(Superfund, 1980) Section 209(a) of Public Law 99-499; FIFRA (7 U.S.C. s/s 136 et seq. (1996),
as amended), Sec.  3(c)(2)(A); FQPA PL 104-170; SDWA (1996) 42 U.S.C. Section 300J-18;
TSCA (Public Law 94-469): 15 U.S.C.  s/s 2601 et seq. (1976), Sec. 4(b)(l)(B), Sec. 4(b)(2)(B).
                                          182

-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                      183

-------
                                         Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
                                         Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                  Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance SuperrUnd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$188,095.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$210,343.0
647.0
FY2010
Actuals
$183,002. 7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,525.3
$206,500.2
625.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$186,095.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$208,343.0
647.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$171,026.0
$454.0
$614.0
$17,706.0
$189,800.0
621.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($17,069.0)
$109.0
($25.0)
($3,558.0)
($20,543.0)
-25.3
Program Project Description:

As the  support to  Agency environmental policy decisions  and regulatory  actions to protect
human health and the environment, EPA's research  has  provided effective  solutions to high-
priority environmental problems for the past 40 years.   Research has enabled the Agency to
implement policies  and regulations to minimize waste and reduce pollution in specific industries
and at national, regional and local scales.  While these solutions were effective in moving the
Agency toward its  goal of protecting human health and environment, they were accomplished
using the best  available  science at the time  and were occasionally more limited in scope, for
example, focusing on the risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species.

Now, as science has advanced, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st
century environmental challenges with solutions that are  effective, efficient, and sustainable -
solutions that  are  designed to meet  current needs while  minimizing  potential health and
environmental risks in the future. To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its
planning and delivery of science by implementing an  integrated research approach that looks at
problems from  a systems  perspective.  This approach will  create synergy and  provide more
timely and efficient benefits beyond those possible  from approaches that are more narrowly
targeted to  single chemicals or problem areas.

Consistent  with the Administration's science  and technology priorities for FY 2012,24 the new
integrated research  approach will help develop sustainable solutions by adding a transformative
component to  EPA's existing  research portfolio.   This research  will  leverage  the  diverse
capabilities of in-house scientists and engineers and bridge traditional scientific disciplines.   In
addition, research plans will incorporate input from external  stakeholders such as federal,  state
24 For more information, see the Executive Office of the President memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fyl2-budget-guidance-memo.pdf
                                           184

-------
and local government  agencies, non-governmental  organizations, industry, and  communities
affected by environmental problems.

EPA will use the integrated research framework to develop a deeper understanding of our
environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals.  In FY
2012, EPA is realigning and integrating the following individual Research Programs into a new
integrated, Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program:

       Human Health research
       Ecosystems Services research
   -   Land Protection and Preservation research
   -   Pesticides and Toxics research
       Sustainability research
       Fellowships
          Proportion of
          Former Programs
          Transferring
        NEW
FY2012  Program
The hallmark of this new SHC Research Program is a central focus on the integration, translation
and coordinated communication of research on the many issues that impact the Sustainability and
health of communities.25  Integrated research on these issues under the new SHC program will
focus on addressing the specific health  and environmental needs of local communities.  The
25 In the graphic above, the proportions of the former research programs transferring to the new Sustainable and Healthy
Communities program reflect funds from all appropriations.
                                          185

-------
program will conduct research to address issues such as environmental justice concerns, waste
reduction and site clean-up, and green development.

The SHCRP will focus primarily on environmental sustainability at the community scale.  The
SHC program aims to conduct research and development that will help communities assess their
current  health and  environmental condition  and identify  strategies that  increase ecosystem
services while decreasing community health risks.  Healthy communities will translate to healthy
economies.

The following are descriptions of current SHC  activities categorized under key program areas:
Human Health Research (FY 2012 request $45.4 million)—Human health research provides tools
and  models to evaluate and manage health risks  from  exposures to environmental chemicals.
Human  Health research  can  promote environmental justice by focusing  on groups such  as
children and the elderly that may be more  susceptible and perhaps disproportionately impacted;
research models are developed in concert with stakeholders and applied in community-based
participatory research projects to characterize communities at disproportionate risk. For example,
the C-FERST (Community-Focused Exposure and Risk Screening Tool), will be pilot tested in
EPA's CARE (Community Action  for a Renewed Environment) program  to identify key
community exposures and evaluate risk mitigation  strategies,  and STAR grants will explore
innovative methods for assessing potential interactions between pollution exposures and social
stressors.

Ecosystems Services Research (FY 2012 request $60.9 million)—Ecosystems Services research
is focused on better understanding the implications of impacts  on ecosystems  and the services
they provide. Research includes analyzing the effects of different environmental management
scenarios in particular communities or regions   over the  intermediate  to long term on the
maintenance of critical ecosystem services that are  expensive or impossible to replace: assessing
regional  scale vulnerability  to ecosystem stressors.  Research examines and  quantifies the
impacts of human behavior on an ecosystem's ability to produce natural benefits and services.
This science generates scientific information  tools for assessing risk management, informing
impactful policy decisions, and creating long-term environmental solutions.

SHC research will also examine Oil Spill and Superfund topic areas that are explained in further
detail in the Oil Spill and Superfund SHC programs.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will conduct pilot projects that explore and address problems in an integrated
manner by focusing specifically on an urban community, on multiple communities in the Gulf of
Mexico  region, a rural community,  and on certain high-priority problems  facing communities
across the nation.  The first phase of research in the SHC Research Program will be to identify
the most significant problems that diminish community sustainability in terms  of human and
environmental health in  a  particular urban  community.  Examples include the ability  to
simultaneously meet air and water quality  goals and standards,  reduce and/or safely dispose  of
wastes and clean up contaminated sites, preserve or mitigate wetlands,  reduce  the burden  of
pollutant exposure to children and the elderly on health care delivery, and  avoid solutions that
                                           186

-------
place a disproportionate burden on households with low socioeconomic status. The program will
conduct extensive transdisciplinary,  multi-stressor, multi-endpoint evaluations of the issues that
communities are facing, relying heavily on state-of-the-art decision analysis with local officials
and stakeholders.  After  gathering data, analyzing trends, and synthesizing  findings, the SHC
Research Program will develop an  "optimal" portfolio of processes and initiatives that can be
drawn from to maximize the  sustainability and resilience of a community, including human,
natural,  and economic capital, which could be readily used by  other communities across the
nation.

Following are two representative  examples focusing on human health protection.  First, the C-
FERST  is being developed  and  applied with input from  prospective users  including regional
decision-makers, CARE community projects, city planners, tribal groups, and NGOs. This user-
friendly, web-based  tool will  enable users to access an  array of exposure information from
multiple databases.  This one-stop  tool will  assist  EPA and other users  in  characterizing
communities as areas of disproportionate  exposure, which could  assist  in identifying risk
reduction and remediation strategies.  Second, EPA will establish Research Centers of Excellence
in Environmental Health Disparities.    These Centers  will  conduct research  that brings
environmental, social and economic sciences together to focus on the best ways protect human
health  in  sustainable  communities  without disproportionately  impacting any  subgroups or
populations.  This research  will  address goals articulated by EPA's Office of Environmental
Justice Plan EJ 2014 and support decisions that incorporate equity into sustainable community
development.

In a third component, the SHC Research Program will identify specific barriers to community
sustainability in its core research  areas (e.g. land, wastes,  ecosystem  services) that face a large
number of communities  across the  nation.  The program will then  conduct R&D to identify
effective strategies to reduce  the barriers.   Examples include substituting  ecosystem services
resulting from land restoration for expensive gray infrastructure upgrades; technology to reduce
or recycle materials to avoid wastes; and smart growth tools that reduce air and water pollution
while improving community health.  The SHC Research Program also will address knowledge,
methods and decision support  gaps that communities face, by developing tools that can be used
by local decision makers to address problems of human and environmental health.  Following are
key research questions to be  addressed by the program  based on ongoing  input from EPA's
partners.  These research questions, as  well as the SHC research plan, will be  independently
reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors:

     •  What computational  and  measurement tools  (e.g.,  ecological footprint, return on
        investment,  probabilistic  analysis)  are  needed  to  support  the application of
        sustainability indicators to community decision making?

     •  What types of systems analysis methods  (e.g., material  flow  analysis, life  cycle
        assessment, system dynamics modeling) can be effectively applied or modified to help
        communities develop plans to address their long term human health  and environmental
        challenges?

     •  How can decision support  systems best be  designed so  that they provide clearly
        understandable  results   to  decision-makers  and stakeholders and are usable by
        communities on a real-time, iterative basis?
                                           187

-------
Finally, EPA will be developing indicators and performance measures, so that communities will
have measurement tools to characterize their current level of sustainability; develop meaningful
goals and quantifiable objectives for the future, understand the consequences  of alternative
investment strategies, track  their progress, and confirm that their investments in  solutions to
improve their sustainability are yielding the intended results. Key research questions include:

     •  What data are available at the national scale that could be useful to communities, and
        how can the numerous state and local datasets be collected and organized to facilitate
        sustainability analysis when a region spans multiple jurisdictional boundaries?

     •  What  indicators  are  most  appropriate  for  assessing  the  overall  environmental
        sustainability of a community?

     •  What indicators are of most utility in diagnosing the causes of sustainability problems
        and identifying potential solutions?

     •  What indicators are most useful  for setting environmental goals and communicating
        these goals to community stakeholders?
        What are the most useful indicators for tracking the performance of projects intended to
        increase environmental sustainability of communities?

In FY  2012, the Agency is increasing funding in areas critical to support the Administration's
science priorities. EPA is strengthening the future scientific workforce by increasing funding for
fellowships to students in pursuit of careers and advanced  degrees in environmental  science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. In FY 2012, EPA will provide $14 million for STAR
Fellowships,  including support for an  estimated 243  continuing fellows and 105  new  STAR
fellows.

The FY 2012 budget also will support a study of the Agency's laboratory network  focusing on
current capability to address important strategic issues central to EPA's mission over the next 10
years.  This investment responds to  Congressional legislation and President Obama's direction,
in Executive Order 13514,  that all  federal agencies implement an integrated  strategy toward
sustainability.

Performance Targets:

To be accountable to the American taxpayers, EPA plans to support the interagency  Science and
Technology in  America's Reinvestment - Measuring the Effect of Research on  Innovation,
Competitiveness and  Science (STAR METRICS) Program,  currently in a  pilot  phase for the
National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the
Office  of Science and Technology Policy,  and the research community.  STAR METRICS will
use "science of science  policy" approaches to assess  the impact of federal  science and
technology investments on society, the environment, and the economy.
                                           188

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to
the 2010 enacted budget and are included in  the transfers from the source programs following
this section:

    •   (+$6,000.0) This request reflects increased funding for training the next generation of
       environmental scientists and  engineers under the  Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
       Fellowship Program. The increase supports the Administration's science and technology
       priority for investing in  a  diverse  science, technology, engineering,  and mathematics
       workforce.

    •   (+$2,000.0) This reflects an increase to support the plan for a long-term review of EPA's
       laboratory network.  This cross-Agency integrated management  approach reflects EPA
       labs,  centers  and program  offices'  aim  to  collaborate  across  traditional  program
       boundaries to support national  and  regional decision-making. This  investment will
       strengthen the Agency's ability to respond to environmental and public health issues.

    •   (-$150.0) This reflects a reduction to human health research integrating health indicators
       with  socio-economic indicators for the Environmental Quality Index (EQI).   This
       reduction will slow the effort to provide comparison metrics for prioritization of research.

    •   (-$667.0)  This reflects a reduction  as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including  advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$1,685.0) This reflects a reduction to ecosystems research for mapping and modeling
       current  ecosystem services and  future ecosystem services  predicted  under multiple
       scenarios.   The reduction will reduce and delay a number of research projects including
       EMAP condition monitoring, site-specific demonstration projects in the southwest, a site-
       specific demonstration project and use of remote sensing technology in the Albermarle-
       Pamlico Watershed, and the Regional Vulnerability Assessment toolkit.

    •   (-$2,000.0)   This reduction  is  the result of a  one-time supplemental  appropriation
       included in FY 2010 for oil spills research.  This increase is not included in the FY 2012
       Budget request.

    •   (-$3,000.0) This reduction is  the result of an increase included in the Congressionally-
       directed  FY 2010  Appropriation  providing  an additional  $3,000.0  for  children's
       environmental health research in FY 2010.  This increase is not included in the FY 2012
       Budget request.

    •   (-$3,500.0)  This reduction reflects decreased funding for the  Advanced Monitoring
       Initiative.  Research with the Interagency Group on Earth Observations will focus only on
                                           189

-------
       those areas that are core EPA priorities; the remaining collaborative research with NASA
       will be integrated into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.

    •   (-$14,067.0 / -21.4 FTE) This decrease represents the net effect of all other payroll and
       technical  adjustments  including  Information Technology reductions,  Small  Business
       Renovation Research (SBIR) realignments and administrative and programmatic support
       realignments and reductions.  It includes a decrease of $6,868.0 for FTE changes as well
       as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information
       on these adjustments,  refer to the programs integrating into the Sustainable and Healthy
       Communities Program.

The following transfers26 will integrate the Human Health Research, Ecosystems  Services
Research, Land  Protection  and  Preservation  Research,   Pesticides  and Toxics  Research,
Sustainability  Research Programs and Fellowships  into the transdisciplinary  Sustainable and
Healthy Communities Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and Agency
priorities. This effort is expected to improve the ability to deliver science more effectively and
efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal.  This integration
reflects EPA's efforts to collaborate across traditional program  boundaries to support national
and  regional  decision-making, thereby  strengthening  the  Agency's ability to respond to
environmental and public health issues.

    •   (+$113,217.0 / +367.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable
       and  Healthy  Communities Program, including $49,335.0 in  associated  payroll. This
       transfer includes the  net effect of all  technical  adjustments such  as Information
       Technology (IT) reductions,  SBIR realignments and administrative and  programmatic
       support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect, please refer
       to the Research:  Land Protection and Restoration program narrative.

    •   (+$9,386.0 / +32.1FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Land Protection and Restoration Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable
       and  Healthy  Communities Program, including $4,216.0 in  associated payroll.   This
       transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR
       realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions.
       For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and
       Restoration Program narrative.

    •   (+$18,548.0 / +65.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Sustainability  Research Program into  the new, integrated   Sustainable  and Healthy
       Communities Program,  including $9,130.0 in associated payroll.  This transfer includes
       the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT  reductions, SBIR realignments and
       administrative and  programmatic support realignments and  reductions. For additional
26 The FY 2012 total for the Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities includes an additional $502 thousand in EPA Green
Conferencing resources that are not included in EPA's Research Program.
                                           190

-------
       details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration
       program narrative.

   •   (+$17,261.0 / +6.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Fellowships Research  Program into the new, integrated  Sustainable  and  Healthy
       Communities Program, including a transfer of $664.0 in associated payroll.  This transfer
       includes  the  net effect  of all technical  adjustments such  as  IT reductions,  SBIR
       realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions.
       For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and
       Restoration Program narrative.

   •   (+$12,116.0 / +58.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the
       Pesticides and Toxics Research Program into the new, integrated Sustainable and Healthy
       Communities Program,  including a transfer of $7,666.0 in associated payroll.  This
       transfer includes the net effect of all technical adjustments such as IT reductions, SBIR
       realignments and administrative and programmatic support realignments and reductions.
       For additional details on this net effect, please refer to the Research: Land Protection and
       Restoration Program narrative.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, Sections 103 and 104. 42 U.S.C.  7403, 42 U.S.C. 7404, 103; 104; CWA, Sections 101,
104 & 404, 33 U.S.C. 1254; CCA, 40 U.S.C. 11318; CZMA, 16 U.S.C.  1451  -  Section 302;
Executive Order 12866; ERDDAA; ESA, 16 U.S.C.  1531  - Section 2; FIFRA Sections 18 and
20; TSCA, Section 10. 15 U.S.C. 2609; WRRA.
                                           191

-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                    192

-------
                                                               Drinking Water Programs
                                            Program Area: Water:  Human Health Protection
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                                        Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$102,224.0
$3,637.0
$105,861.0
589.4
FY2010
Actuals
$99,394.2
$3,889.3
$103,283.5
598.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$102,224.0
$3,637.0
$105,861.0
589.4
FY2012
Pres Budget
$104,616.0
$3,787.0
$108,403.0
585.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$2,392.0
$150.0
$2,542.0
-4.1
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.  The
Center also:

    •   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  EPA regional offices 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.27

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Drinking Water Technical Support Program will:
27 For additional program information see
http://www.epa.gov/safewater
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=63cecb6866ee587d2bfafc7b77c3563c&cck=l&au=&ck
                                           193

-------
Provide technical  and scientific support for the development  and implementation of
drinking water regulations.  This includes the development of methods for updating rules
and  implementing the  Unregulated Contaminant  Monitoring  Rule  (UCMR),  and
responding  to  technical  implementation  questions  regarding  the  entire  range of
NPDWRs;

Implement EPA's Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program.  This program sets
standards  and establishes methods for EPA, state, and privately-owned laboratories that
analyze drinking water samples. Through this program, EPA will conduct three regional
program reviews during FY 2012.  TSC visits each regional office on a triennial basis and
evaluates  their  oversight of the state laboratories 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 FY 2012, EPA will have worked with four regional offices and
24 states to facilitate the transfer of specific skills using the performance-based training
approach targeted  toward optimizing key groundwater system  and distribution system
integrity.  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;

Complete the review and validation  of the data  from the second  round  of contaminant
monitoring conducted under UCMR2. The monitoring period for  UCMR2 was January
2008 to December 2010. The last of the  monitoring results should  be reported by public
water systems by  the middle of calendar year 2011. The monitoring results, used in
conjunction with health effects information  and other occurrence data,  will contribute
significantly to the regulatory determination process;

Publish the regulation that will support  the  third  round of unregulated contaminant
monitoring (UCMR3) and  coordinate with states and regional  offices to carry  out the
agency's pre-monitoring implementation responsibilities. Key activities for EPA include
management of all  aspects  of small-system  monitoring,  approval  and  oversight of
supporting laboratories,  troubleshooting  and  technical assistance,   and review  and
validation of data.  EPA is  required by Section 1452(o) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA),  as amended, to annually set aside $2 million of State Revolving  Funds to pay
the costs of small system monitoring and sample analysis for contaminants for each cycle
of the UCMR. UCMR3 monitoring is scheduled to begin in January 2013; and

Provide analytical  method  development/validation to  enable  implementation of the
nation's drinking water compliance monitoring  and occurrence data gathering.
                                    194

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type





Outcome




Measure
(aa) Percent of
population served by
CWSs that will receive
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based drinking
water standards
through approaches
including effective
treatment & source
water protection.
FY 2010
Target





90




FY 2010
Actual





92




FY2011
CR
Target





91




FY 2012
Target





91




Units




Pprppnt
A wlv/wllL
Population




Measure
Type




Outcome



Measure
(apm) Percent of
community water
systems that meet all
applicable health-based
standards through
approaches that include
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2010
Target




90



FY 2010
Actual




89.6



FY2011
CR
Target




90



FY 2012
Target




90



Units



Percent
Systems



Work under this program supports EPA's protect Human Health Objective. Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific program project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$163.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$13.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign processes and  streamline  activities  in  both administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:
                                          195

-------
SOW A, 42 U.S.C. §300f-300j-9 as added by Public Law 93-523 and the amendments made by
sub sequentenactments.
                                       196

-------
Program Area: Clean Air
          197

-------
                                                                      Research: Clean Air
                                                         Program Area: Research: Clean Air
                                                 Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                                      Objective(s): Radiation; Enhance Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted
$81,917.0
$81,917.0
269.5

FY2010
Actuals
$74,920.0
$74,920.0
265.5

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$81,917.0
$81,917.0
269.5

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($81,917.0)
($81,917.0)
-269.5
Program Project Description:

EPA's Office of Research and Development provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's
actions to  protect the  air Americans breathe and supports the Administrator's  priority for
improving  air quality.   The program provides the underlying research to support the Agency's
implementation of the  Clean Air Act, which mandates promulgation and enforcement of the
National Ambient  Air Quality  Standards  (NAAQS)28  as well  as  the evaluation of risks
associated  with Hazardous Air Pollutants.29  In  addition,  the program has integrated research
activities around a multi-pollutant approach to address ozone and other criteria pollutants as well
as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).  In moving toward the multi-pollutant theme, the program
increasingly focuses on how to address  specific  source sectors  contributing to air pollution, a
systems  approach that will result in more effective  and  efficient air quality management
strategies.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions  to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years. However, these solutions were accomplished using  approaches based on the best
science available at the time and typically focused on the risks posed by a single chemical to a
single  target organ  or species. Now, as science  advances, EPA is  working to  address the
increasing  complexity  of 21st century environmental challenges.  Protecting human health and
the environment  from  the effects of air pollution  and developing a better understanding  of
climate change impacts on natural systems, while meeting the demands of a growing population
and economy, is critical to the  well-being of the  nation. As we investigate solutions to reduce
and prevent  emissions and investigate  potential  environmental implications of a  changing
climate,  we  are challenged by uncertainties  surrounding the complex interplay between air
quality, the changing  climate,  and a changing energy landscape, and the  subsequent human
health  and environmental risks from exposure to an evolving array of air pollutants.
28 The NAAQS set limits for criteria pollutants regulating levels of tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
29 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html
                                            198

-------
In FY 2012  EPA will  strengthen its planning  and delivery of science by implementing an
integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective. This approach
will create synergy and should produce more timely, efficient results that those possible from
approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas.

To implement this new  approach, EPA is integrating most of the Clean Air Research Program
into the new  Air, Climate and Energy Research Program.  EPA is integrating the remainder of
the Clean Air Program,  nanotechnology, into the Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research
Program.  This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the innovative use
of a multiple disciplines to further EPA's mission. Research to  address targeted,  existing
problems and provide technical support will continue, with a focus on sustainable applications
and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (+$3,000.0) This reflects an increase to help the Agency develop efficient, high-performing,
   and cost-effective monitors for ambient air pollutants, including both the NAAQS and HAPs.
   In particular, it will provide field validation of available, untested and undeployed monitoring
   methods,  refinement of outdated techniques and methods, and innovative new technologies.
   With this investment, the Agency will seek lowest-cost, automated monitoring technologies
   to minimize future monitoring burdens felt by state and local agencies.  This investment in a
   next generation air  monitoring  network supports the  Agency's  priority of improving  air
   quality across the nation by helping modernize methods and monitors.

•  (+$1,756.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•  (+$531.0) This  represents  a  restoration   of  resources   transferred  to  the  Research:
   Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR,
   EPA is required to  set aside  2.5  percent of funding for contracts to small businesses to
   develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is
   enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will be
   transferred to the SBIR Program.

•  (-$124.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
   initiative  targets  certain  categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions, including
   advisory  contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.   EPA will continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$133.0) This decrease in travel  costs reflects an effort  to reduce  the  Agency's travel
   footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$136.0 / +0.3 FTE) This reflects the  net result of realignments  of infrastructure FTE and
   resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
   that are  proportionately  allocated  across programs to better  align  with programmatic

                                           199

-------
   priorities.  This includes an increase of 0.3 FTE and associated payroll of $40.0 and reflects
   EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills
   and Agency priorities.

•   (-$150.0) This reflects a decrease to the Clean Air Program and will reduce source receptor
   and dose-effect research that investigates human exposure to air pollutants and the resulting
   health effects.  This decrease could reduce the level of detail in risk estimates needed to
   support NAAQS  regulations.   This decrease will also delay  reporting for the  Detroit
   Exposure and Aerosol Research Study.

•  (-$224.0)   This  reduction  reflects  efficiencies  from  several  Agencywide  Information
   Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk
   standardization,  and others totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in individual areas
   may be offset by  increased mandatory  costs  for telephone and local area network (LAN)
   support for FTE.

•  (-$459.0 /  -1.5 FTE) This reduction reflects  savings from the Administrative Efficiencies
   Project  (AEP),  a  long-term  effort  to   develop a  corporate  approach  to delivering
   administrative services.  The reduced resources include  1.5 FTE and associated payroll of
   $200.0  and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the  Agency better
   align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$536.0 / -1.5 FTE)  This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting
   from expected efficiencies  in providing operational support to researchers.  It also includes a
   reduction of  1.5  FTE  and  associated  payroll of $200.0  that  reflects EPA's workforce
   management strategy that  will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency
   priorities.

•  (-$549.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.

•  (-$762.0) This reduction to the Clean Air Research Program will reduce research activities
   that  support the development and application of models and technologies used to understand
   the relationships between air pollution,  ambient concentration and exposures, and assist in
   the development of state implementation strategies.  This decrease will result in a delay to
   possible model improvements that  could  aid  state  and regional air quality implementation
   plans.

•  (-$818.0 / -4.0 FTE) This reflects a shift from  the Clean Air Research Program to the Global
   Change Research  Program for  research on air quality-climate interactions  to effectively
   couple regional  air quality and  global climate models. The reduced resources include 4.0
   FTE and associated payroll of $532.0  and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that
   will  help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$127.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollars and FTE resources for nanotechnology
   research to the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. The reduced
   resources include  1.0 FTE and  associated payroll  of $127.0 and reflect  EPA's workforce

                                           200

-------
   management strategy that will help  the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency
   priorities.

•  (-$83,186.0 / -261.8 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
   Air, Climate, and Energy Research Program and includes $35,373.0 in associated payroll.
   This transfer will integrate the Clean Air Research Program into the transdisciplinary Air,
   Climate and Energy (ACE) Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and
   Agency priorities.  This effort will  improve the  Agency's ability to deliver science more
   effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall
   goal.

Statutory Authority:

CAA 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Title 1, Part A - Sec. 103 (a) and (d) and Sec. 104 (c); CAA 42
U.S.C 7402(b) Section  102; CAA 42 U.S.C 7403(b)(2) Section 103(b)(2); Clinger Cohen Act, 40
U.S.C 11318;  Economy Act,  31 U.S.C 1535; ERDDA,  33  U.S.C. 1251  -  Section  2(a);
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; NEPA, Section 102; PPA.
                                          201

-------
                                                               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

FY2010
Enacted
$20,826.0
$20,826.0
35.5

FY2010
Actuals
$19,646.9
$19,646.9
36.3

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$20,826.0
$20,826.0
35.5

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($20,826.0)
($20,826.0)
-35.5
Program Project Description:

EPA's Office of Research and Development is focused on understanding and assessing  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 and
supports the Administrator's priorities for taking action on climate change, improving air quality
and protecting America's waters. 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. EPA
also is developing decision support tools to help decision  makers evaluate alternative strategies
for reducing  greenhouse gas emissions to  better quantify the environmental implications (and
potential co-benefits) associated with deployment of these strategies.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years. However, these solutions were accomplished using approaches based  on the best
science available at the time and typically focused on the  risks posed by  a single chemical to a
single  target organ or species. Now,  as  science advances, EPA is working to address  the
increasing complexity of 21st century  environmental challenges.  Protecting human health and
the environment from  the effects  of  air pollution and developing a better understanding of
climate change impacts on natural systems, while meeting the demands of a growing population
and economy, is critical to the well-being of the nation.  As we investigate solutions to reduce
and prevent  emissions  and  investigate potential environmental implications of a changing
climate, we are challenged  by uncertainties surrounding the complex  interplay between air
quality, the changing climate, and  a  changing  energy landscape, and the subsequent human
health and environmental risks from exposure to an evolving array of air pollutants.

In FY 2012  EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an
integrated research approach that looks at problems from  a systems perspective.  This approach
                                          202

-------
will create synergy and should produce more timely, efficient results than those possible from
approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas.

To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Global Change Research Program into
the  new Air, Climate and Energy Research Program.  This integration  capitalizes on existing
capabilities, and promotes the innovative use of a multiple disciplines to further EPA's mission.
Research to address targeted, existing problems and provide technical support will continue, with
a focus on sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (-$432.0)  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.

•  (+$818.0 / +4.0 FTE)  This reflects a shift to the Global Change Research Program from the
   Clean Air Research Program to better  align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.  The
   resources include 4.0  FTE and  associated payroll of $532.0  and  reflect EPA's workforce
   management strategy that  will help the Agency  better align resources,  skills and Agency
   priorities.

•  (+$232.0)  This  represents  a  restoration  of  resources  transferred  to  the  Research:
    Sustainability program to  support  Small  Business Innovation Research (SBIR).  For that
   program, EPA is required to set aside 2.5 percent of funding for contracts to small businesses
   to develop and commercialize new environmental  technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is
   enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will
   be transferred to the SBIR Program.

•  (+$131.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.

•  (+$104.0 / +2.0 FTE)  This reflects the  net result of realignment of infrastructure FTE and
   resources such as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
   that are  proportionately  allocated  across  programs  to  better align  with  programmatic
   priorities.  This includes an increase of 2.0 FTE with associated payroll of $266.0.

•  (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.  This
   initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,  including
   advisory contracts, travel,  general  services, printing  and  supplies.  EPA will continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$26.0) This decrease  in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint
   by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$30.0)  This   reduction  reflects   efficiencies   from  several  Agencywide Information
   Technology (IT) projects such as email optimization, consolidated IT  procurement, helpdesk
   standardization, and others totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in individual areas

                                          203

-------
   may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN)
   support for FTE.

•  (-$92.0 / -0.2 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies
   Project  (AEP),   a long-term  effort  to  develop  a  corporate  approach  to  delivering
   administrative services.  The reduced resources include 0.2 FTE and associated payroll of
   $27.0  and reflect EPA's workforce management  strategy  that will help the Agency better
   align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$85.0 / -0.1 FTE)  This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting
   from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers. It also includes a
   reduction of 0.1  FTE and  associated payroll of $13.0 that reflects  EPA's  workforce
   management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills  and Agency
   priorities.

•  (-$625.0) This reflects  a reduction to research investigating the impacts of climate change on
   estuarine ecosystems.

•  (-$20,810.0 / -41.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new Air,
   Climate,  and Energy  Research Program, including $5,521.0 in associated payroll. This
   transfer will integrate  the Global Change  Research Program into the transdisciplinary Air,
   Climate and Energy (ACE) Research Program that better aligns with the Administration and
   Agency  priorities.  This effort will improve the  Agency's ability to deliver science more
   effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall
   goal.

Statutory Authority:

Clinger Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C 11318; Economy Act, 31 U.S.C  1535; ERDDA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 -
Section 2(a); Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 31 U.S.C. 6502; NCPA; NEPA,  Section 102;
PPA; USGCRA 15 U.S.C.  2921.
                                          204

-------
Program Area: Clean Water
           205

-------
                                                               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

FY2010
Enacted
$49,155.0
$49,155.0
190.2

FY2010
Actuals
$50,346.0
$50,346.0
182.9

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$49,155.0
$49,155.0
190.2

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($49,155.0)
($49,155.0)
-190.2
Program Project Description:

EPA's Drinking Water Research Program conducts comprehensive integrated research in support
of EPA's Office  of Water and regional offices.   The program provides methodologies, data,
tools, models, and technologies in support of regulatory decisions, health risk assessments and
other needs  pertaining to the Safe  Drinking Water Act's  (SDWA)  statutory  requirements.
Research also is targeted at the implementation of regulatory decisions, addressing compliance
issues  associated with  groups of contaminants, promoting the sustainability of water resources,
and the reliable delivery of safe drinking water, as well as developing approaches to improve
water infrastructure.

Research in the Drinking Water Research Program is coordinated with the Agency's regulatory
activities and timelines. Key research areas include:

    •   Supporting  EPA's  Drinking  Water StrategySO  through  technology  research  and
        evaluation of alternative  approaches to  control  multiple contaminants effectively and
        affordably;
    •   Addressing information gaps associated with chemicals and microorganisms that  are on
        the  third  Contaminant Candidate List  and  supporting the  unregulated contaminant
        monitoring rule;
    •   Addressing science issues associated with revisions to the Total Coliform  Rule and
        related research on distribution systems and sustainable water infrastructure;
    •   Providing  support to  those implementing recent regulatory  decisions  including the
        Ground Water Rule, the Stage  2 Disinfection  Byproduct Rule,  and  the  Long-Term
        Enhanced  Surface Water Treatment Rule;
    •   Supporting simultaneous compliance challenges, particularly  co-compliance with the
        Lead and Copper Rule, Microbial and Disinfectant Byproduct rules; and
    •   Supporting  regulatory  needs associated  with  the Underground Injection Control
        regulations pertaining to geologic  sequestration of carbon  and  aquifer storage and
30http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/sdwa/dwstrategydocs/Drinking_Water_Strategyfs.pdf

                                           206

-------
       recovery as well as research on water resource implications associated with hydraulic
       fracturing for gas extraction.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years.  As science advances, EPA is working towards  and  approach that allows the
Agency  to  address  the increasing  complexity of 21st century environmental  challenges.
Increasing demands for sources of clean water-combined with land use practices, growth, aging
infrastructure, and climate variability can  threaten our nation's water resources.  Competing
challenges require research to inform improved management practices that consider long-term
sustainability for human and aquatic ecosystem health.

In FY 2012  EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing  an
integrated research approach.  This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to
develop  a  deeper understanding  of our environmental  challenges  and  inform  sustainable
solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Drinking Water Research Program into
the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research Program.   This new program is directly
aligned with EPA's new Strategic  Plan structure, capitalizes  on existing  capabilities, and
promotes the use  of a perspective to further EPA's mission. Research to address targeted,
existing problems  and  provide technical support will continue, with an emphasized  focus  on
sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$4,226.0 / +5.0 FTE) This reflects  an increase for research on  hydraulic fracturing
       which includes  $665.0 in associated payroll for 5.0 FTE.  Research  will provide policy
       relevant methods, models,  monitoring  tools,  and data on potential risks associated with
       extracting gas  from   subsurface formations using  vertical  and horizontal  fracturing
       technologies. Research will inform key areas lacking information to provide an adequate
       assessment of the potential public health and environmental  risks posed by hydraulic
       fracturing.   In  particular, EPA's  Science  Advisory Board  recommends that  EPA
       undertake five to ten  case  studies in order to provide an understanding of how the risks
       may vary in the key geologic and geographic situations where hydraulic fracturing is or
       may be used.  Evaluation of the chemicals conducted under this investment will provide a
       sound foundation upon which to base the choice of safer hydraulic fracturing chemicals.
       Congress has urged EPA to conduct this research, which supports the Agency's priority
       to protect the quality of the nation's waters by ensuring the protection of our aquifers.

    •   (+$1,180.0)  This increase reflects the  recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

       (-$36.0 / +2.9 FTE) This reflects  the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and
       resources  such  as equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general


                                           207

-------
   expenses  that  are proportionately  allocated across  programs  to  better  align  with
   programmatic priorities. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
   will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
•  (+$216.0)  This  represents a restoration of resources transferred in FY 2010 to the
   Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
   For SBIR, EPA is required to set  aside 2.5  percent  of funding for contracts to small
   businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
   2012  Budget is enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known,
   FY 2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

•  (+$65.0) This realignment of resources from the Land Protection and Remediation
   Program  reflects   the  natural  evolution  in  research  direction  from  groundwater
   remediation issues to groundwater protection issues related to carbon sequestration.

•  (-$28.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs for rent,  utilities, security
   and other expenditures.

•  (-$91.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort  to reduce the Agency's travel
   footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$150.0)  This reduction reflects  efficiencies from  several Agencywide Information
   Technology (IT) projects  such as email optimization,  consolidated  IT  procurement,
   helpdesk  standardization, and  others  totaling  $10 million Agencywide.   Savings in
   individual  areas may be offset by increased  mandatory  costs for telephone and Local
   Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

•   (-$352.0  / -1.0 FTE)  This  reflects  a reduction of programmatic support resources
   resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to researchers in the
   Drinking Water Research Program.  It also includes a reduction of programmatic FTE
   that reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align
   resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$356.0 /  -0.9 FTE)   This reduction reflects savings from EPA's Administrative
   Efficiencies Project (AEP),  a long-term effort  to  develop a corporate approach to
   delivering administrative services. The  reduced resources include 0.9 FTE and associated
   payroll  of $120.0  and reflect EPA's workforce management  strategy that will help the
   Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$550.0) This reflects a reduction to the development of best management practices and
   informing decisions associated with control of pathogens in drinking water systems.  This
   decrease will limit the extent to which the Agency can respond to the priorities defined
   by EPA's Distribution System Research and Information Collection Partnership (RICP).

•  (-$732.0) This  reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
   This  initiative targets certain categories of  spending for  efficiencies and  reductions,
   including advisory  contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will

                                       208

-------
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$52,547.0 / -196.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
       Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Program and includes a transfer of $25,050.0 in
       associated payroll.  This transfer will integrate the Drinking Water Research Program
       into the transdisciplinary Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) Program that
       better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities.  EPA expects this effort will
       improve the Agency's  ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with
       catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

SDWA Part E, Sec. 1442 (a)(l); CWA Title I, Sec.  101(a)(6) 33 U.S.C. 1254 - Sec 104 (a) and
(c) and Sec. 105; ERDDA 33 U.S.C. 1251 - Section 2(a); MPRSA Sec. 203, 33 U.S.C.
                                           209

-------
                                                                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

FY2010
Enacted
$61,918.0
$61,918.0
236.8

FY2010
Actuals
$58,586.9
$58,586.9
224.6

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$61,918.0
$61,918.0
236.8

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($61,918.0)
($61,918.0)
-236.8
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 partners in developing research priorities, and
also  supports the Administrator's priority of protecting America's waters.  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).  In particular, urban watershed management
is  a top Agency priority.  Continued efforts on green infrastructure research will facilitate the
nation's transition to more sustainable water infrastructure systems and watershed management
practices. This and other Water Quality research is categorized within three broad areas:  Water
Quality Integrity  Research;  Watershed  Management  Research;  and  Source  Control  and
Management Research.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research  has provided  effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past  40 years.  As science advances, EPA is working towards and approach that allows  the
Agency to  address  the  increasing  complexity  of 21st century  environmental challenges.
Increasing demands on sources of clean water, land use practices, growth, aging infrastructure,
and climate variability pose threatens to our nation's water resources.  Research is needed to
inform improved  management our nation's waters in an integrated, sustainable manner that will
promote economic prosperity and human and aquatic ecosystem health.
                                           210

-------
To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will look at
problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental
challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Water Quality Research Program into
the  Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research  Program. This new program  is directly
aligned with EPA's  new  Strategic Plan structure,  capitalizes  on existing capabilities, and
promotes the use of a transdisciplinary perspective to further EPA's mission. Research to address
targeted, existing  problems  and  provide  technical  support  will  continue,  with focus on
sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$319.0)   This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •    (+$5,966.0 / +7.0 FTE) This reflects funding for green infrastructure research to improve
       urban watershed  management  practices and facilitate  the nation's  transition  to more
       sustainable  water  infrastructure systems.  The increase  also  includes 7.0  FTE  with
       associated payroll of $931.0.  A  significant portion  of funds will  leverage  the most
       innovative thinking by academia's top scientists through  STAR grants.

   •   (+$1,087.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.

   •   (+$589.0 / +2.2 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources
       such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
       to better align with programmatic priorities, and includes 2.2 FTE with associated payroll
       of $293.0 Realignments are based on FTE allocations  as well  as scientific equipment
       needs.

   •   (+$183.0)  This represents  a restoration  of resources  transferred in FY 2010 to the
       Research: Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
       For SBIR, EPA is required to  set aside 2.5 percent  of funding for contracts to small
       businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
       2012 Budget is enacted, and the  exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
       2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

   •   (-$92.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$227.0) This reduction  reflects efficiencies from  several  Agencywide Information
       Technology  (IT)  projects such as  email  optimization, consolidated IT  procurement,
       helpdesk standardization,  and  others totaling $10 million Agencywide.   Savings in
                                          211

-------
       individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local
       Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

    •   (-$273.0) This  reflects a reduction as  part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative  targets  certain categories of  spending for  efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$510.0 /  -1.3  FTE)   This reflects  a reduction of programmatic support resources
       associated with the Water Quality Research Program.  This change includes a decrease of
       1.3  FTE and associated payroll of $173.0 and reflects EPA's workforce management
       strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

    •   (-$731.0 /  -1.3 FTE)  This  reduction reflects  savings  from  EPA's Administrative
       Efficiencies Project  (AEP),  a  long-term effort  to  develop a corporate approach to
       delivering administrative services.  This change includes  a decrease  of 1.3 FTE  and
       associated payroll of $173.0 and reflects EPA's workforce management  strategy that will
       help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

    •   (-$2,000.0)  This reflects a decrease in Beaches research due to continued progress in
       meeting the requirements  of the consent decree  and settlement agreement. Work to
       support implementation efforts through the Office of Water will receive  a higher priority.
       In particular, as the Beaches work nears completion, human health effects work will
       transition to a technical support level. Research on methods and new molecular tools will
       continue. Large scale epidemiology studies  will be more difficult to support with  this
       reduction, but continued development of measures of waterborne pathogen occurrence
       and tools for assessing illnesses related  to pathogens will remain a priority.  There will
       not be large scale health studies in FY  2012, but work on  tools to use in future health
       studies will continue.

    •   (-$66,229.0 / -243.4 FTE)  This reflects  a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new,
       integrated Safe and  Sustainable Water  Resources Program and includes $31,105.0 in
       associated payroll. This transfer will integrate the Water Quality Research Program into
       the  transdisciplinary  Safe and Sustainable Water Resources  (SSWR) Research Program
       that better aligns with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort
       will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with
       catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

CWA Title I,  Sec. 101(a)(6) 33 U.S.C. 1254 - Sec 104 (a)  and (c) and Sec. 105; ERDDA 33
U.S.C. 1251 - Section 2(a); MPRSA  Sec. 203, 33 U.S.C. 1443; ODBA Title II; SPA; CVA;
WRDA;  WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA; CWPPRA;  ESA; NAWCA; FIFRA 7 U.S. C.
135 et seq; TSCA U.S. C. 136 et seq.
                                           212

-------
Program Area: Human Health and Ecosystems
                  213

-------
                                                    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

FY2010
Enacted
$20,048.0
$20,048.0
32.7

FY2010
Actuals
$13,929.9
$13,929.9
33.0

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$20,048.0
$20,048.0
32.7

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($20,048.0)
($20,048.0)
-32.7
Program Project Description:

Computational Toxicology assesses the risks that certain chemicals pose to human health and the
environment  using  mathematical  and   computer  models.  Established  in  2003,  EPA's
Computational Toxicology Research Program (CTRP) examines the sources of chemicals in the
environment and assesses their potential  to cause adverse health effects. The CTRP develops
robust and flexible computational tools,  which are used to assess thousands of contaminants
found  in  America's air, water, and  hazardous-waste  sites. Advances in informatics, high-
throughput screening, and genomics enable  EPA scientists to use  CTRP results to develop a
detailed understanding of the risks posed by large numbers of chemicals, while at the same time
reduce the use of animals for toxicological testing. These tools are transforming environmental
health protection by providing risk assessors and managers more efficient and effective methods
for managing chemical risks.

The National Center for Computational Toxicology, established in 2005,  comprises the largest
component of the CTRP.  The  strategic directions of the CTRP are highly consistent with the
National Research Council report "Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a
Strategy"31  (Tox21), and  include  several  substantial  and innovative projects  in  chemical
screening and prioritization,  informatics,  and systems  biology32. EPA's Science to Achieve
Results (STAR)  grant  program  and  other EPA  laboratories conduct  research under the
Computational  Toxicology program.  The contribution  of the  STAR program to the CTRP
includes two centers in bioinformatics and two in computational toxicology. The research of
these centers will help fill gaps in our understanding of the molecular pathways  that may result in
toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus, which we  know represent highly susceptible life
stages to chemical exposure.  As these pathways are identified, assays will be  developed to test
their sensitivity to thousands of chemicals.
31Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy,
http://www.nap. edu/openbook.php?record_id=11970&page=l
32http://epa.gov/ncct/download_files/basic_information/CTRP2_Implementation_Plan_FY09_12.pdf
                                          214

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has  provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years.   The Computational  Toxicology program  efforts  are at the core of The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Strategic Plan for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals33.
The Strategic Plan and the CTRP Implementation Plan for FY 2009-2012 highlight the unique
capabilities of EPA to  provide the necessary science to transform how chemical and other risk
assessments  are performed,  and thus  support  improved  management  of  environmental
contaminants and chemical risk. Unfortunately, traditional research approaches within the CTRP
portfolio are limited in their ability to address the increasing  complexity of 21st century
environmental challenges.

To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an  integrated transdisciplinary research approach.  This  approach will look at
problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding  of our environmental
challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach,  EPA is integrating  the Computational  Toxicology Research
Program into the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability (CSS) program.  This new program is
directly aligned with EPA's new Strategic Plan structure, capitalizes on existing capabilities, and
promotes the use of a transdisciplinary approach to further EPA's mission. Research to address
targeted, existing  problems and provide technical support will continue, with a  focus on
sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (-$756.0) 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.

•   (+$2,000.0)  This reflects  an increase  for next-generation tools  to  speed  and  facilitate
    implementation of the  Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening  program  (EDSP). The
    application  of these tools will  introduce a more efficient approach  to identifying potential
    endocrine disrupters  and apply this information across the life cycle of a chemical.  This
    research  is  critical to  help  the  Agency meet its priority  of strengthening chemicals
    management and risk assessment.

•   (+$285.0)  This  represents  a  restoration of  resources  transferred  to the  Research:
    Sustainability program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For SBIR
    EPA is required to set aside 2.5  percent  of funding for  contracts to small  businesses to
    develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY 2012 budget is
    enacted, when the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY 2012 funds will
    be transferred to the SBIR program.
"National Service Center for Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,OH 45242, publication # 100K09001

                                           215

-------
•  (+$92.0 / +2.7 FTE) This change reflects the net result of realignments of resources such as
   critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel,  contracts, and  general expenses to better
   align with programmatic priorities, including 2.7 FTE with associated payroll  of $359.0.
   Realignments of these resources are based on FTE allocations as well as scientific equipment
   needs.

•  (-$3.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide Information Technology
   (IT)  projects  such  as  email  optimization,  consolidated  IT  procurement,  helpdesk
   standardization,  and others totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in individual  areas
   may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone  and  local area network (LAN)
   support for FTE.

•  (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint
   by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$133.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reflects a realignment of FTE resources for STAR grants including
   -$133.0 in associated payroll.   This change  reflects EPA's workforce management strategy
   that will help the Agency better align resources,  skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$294.0) This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
   initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and  reductions, including
   advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$21,211.0 / -34.4 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar  and  FTE resources to  the new
   Chemical Safety and Sustainability program  (CSS), including $4,363.0 in associated payroll.
   This transfer will integrate Endocrine Disrupters Chemicals; Computational Toxicology; and
   Nanotechnology Research Programs, as well as portions of Sustainability,  Human Health,
   Pesticides and Toxics, and Human Health Risk Assessment programs into a transdisciplinary
   effort that better aligns with  the Administration  and  Agency priorities.  This  effort will
   improve  the Agency's  ability to deliver science  more  effectively  and efficiently,  with
   catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

   SDWA; Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments; Environmental Research, Development
   and Demonstration Authorization  Act;  SARA;  CERCLA;  RCRA; Oil  Pollution  Act;
   BRERA; Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority.
                                           216

-------
                                                         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

FY2010
Enacted
$11,355.0
$11,355.0
50.1

FY2010
Actuals
$12,471.9
$12.471.9
52.1

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$11,355.0
$11,355.0
50.1

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($11,355.0)
($11,355.0)
-50.1
Program Project Description:

EPA's Endocrine Disrupters Research  Program  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. The Endocrine Disrupters Research Program
provides  direct  support  to  EPA's Endocrine  Screening  and Testing Programs,  which  are
mandated  under the  Food Quality Protection Act of 1996  and the Safe  Drinking  Water Act
Amendments of 1996.34

EPA uses Endocrine Disrupters research to develop risk management tools to prevent or mitigate
exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Decision-makers use these tools to reduce
and prevent exposure of humans and  ecosystems to endocrine disrupters. The EDCs Program
also develops and evaluates the new and existing test protocols that are used to assess potential
endocrine  effects of environmental agents.

This research program strengthens  the scientific foundation for the Agency's  actions to protect
Americans against unreasonable risk from exposure to toxicants that interfere with the endocrine
system. In addition, the EDCs Program supports the Administrator's priorities for assuring the
safety  of chemicals,  protecting  America's waters  and  building  strong  state  and  tribal
partnerships.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance  Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past  40 years.  Unfortunately,  traditional research  approaches are limited  in their ability  to
address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental  challenges.   Although
chemicals are essential to modern  life, we lack innovative  systematic, effective, and efficient
approaches and tools to inform  decisions that reduce the environmental and societal impact of
harmful chemicals while increasing economic value.
  SDWA Section 1457.
                                          217

-------
To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach.  This approach will look at
problems from a systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental
challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Endocrine Disrupters Research Program
into the Chemical  Safety and Sustainability Research  Program. This new program is directly
aligned with EPA's  new Strategic Plan structure, capitalizes on  existing capabilities, and
promotes the use of a transdisciplinary approach to further EPA's mission. Research to address
targeted, existing  problems and provide technical support will  continue,  with a focus on
sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$115.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce  costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (+$7,000.0) Additional funding will support grants to academia through the Science to
       Achieve Results  (STAR) Program, complementing the intramural research effort on
       endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).  This research will  allow  for an acceleration of
       applying the  latest  state-of-the-art technologies  and innovations  to  advance  the
       assessment  and management of environmental  endocrine disrupters and other emerging
       contaminants of concern.

   •   (+133.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a realignment of FTE  resources for STAR grants,
       including  $133.0  in  associated  payroll.   This change  reflects  EPA's workforce
       management strategy that will help the Agency  better align resources, skills and Agency
       priorities.

   •   (+$37.0) This  represents a  restoration  of resources  transferred  to  the Research:
       Sustainability  Program to support  Small  Business  Innovation Research (SBIR). For
       SBIR,  EPA is required  to  set aside 2.5 percent of  funding for contracts  to  small
       businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
       2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
       2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

   •    (+$5.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed  costs.

   •   (-$43.0) This decrease in travel  costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$54.6  /  -0.2 FTE)   This  reduction  reflects  savings from EPA's Administrative
       Efficiencies Project (AEP),  a long-term  effort  to  develop a corporate approach  to
       delivering  administrative  services.   The  reduced  resources  include  0.2 FTE and
       associated payroll of -$26.6. The change reflects EPA's  workforce management strategy
       that will help the Agency better align resources,  skills and Agency priorities.

                                          218

-------
    •   (-$58.9  /  -0.3  FTE)   This reflects a  reduction  of programmatic  support  resources
       associated with the Endocrine Disrupters Research  Program.  The  reduced  resources
       include 0.3 FTE and associated payroll of -$39.9.  The change reflects EPA's workforce
       management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency
       priorities.

    •   (-$255.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the  Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.   EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$413.8 /  -1.6 FTE)  This represents a net realignment of FTE and resources  to the
       Pesticides and Toxics Research Program to address exposure issues related to potential
       chemical and/or pesticide stressors to better reflect program support needs. This includes
       a reduction of  1.6 FTE with decreased  associated payroll of  -$212.8.   This change
       reflects  EPA's workforce  management strategy that will help the agency better align
       resources,  skills and Agency priorities.

    •   (-$701.7 / -2.9  FTE) This reflects the realignment of resources for  critical  equipment
       purchases  and facility repairs and  improvements across Agency Research Programs to
       better align with programmatic priorities.  This includes a reduction of 2.9  FTE  with
       decreased  associated payroll of -$385.7. Realignments are based on FTE allocations as
       well as scientific equipment needs.

    •   (-$16,888.0 /  -46.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
       Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program to better integrate chemical safety Research
       Programs.  The reduced resources include 46.1 FTE and associated payroll of $5,847.0.
       This transfer will integrate Computational Toxicology, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals,
       and Nanotechnology research, along with portions of Human Health, Human Health  Risk
       Assessment, Pesticides and  Toxics, and Sustainability research into  a transdisciplinary
       effort that better aligns with Agency priorities.  This effort will improve the Agency's
       ability to  deliver  science  more effectively and efficiently, with  catalyzing  innovative
       sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, 42 U.S.C.  Sec. 103, 104 & 154; CWA, 33  U.S.C.  Sec. 101-121; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.;
ERDDAA, 42  U.S.C.  4361-4370; FIFRA, 7 U.S.C.  Sec.  136; FQPA,  7  U.S.C.;  Pollution
Prevent on Act PP A, 42 U.S.C. 13103; RCRA 42 U.S.C.; SOW A, 42 U.S.C. 1457 Sec. 136-137,
201-203; TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2609.
                                           219

-------
                                                                   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

FY2010
Enacted
$11,083.0
$11,083.0
2.6

FY2010
Actuals
$11,453.8
$11,453.8
7.4

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$11,083.0
$11,083.0
2.6

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($11,083.0)
($11,083.0)
-2.6
Program Project Description:

It is essential that our nation has a well-trained scientific and engineering workforce that can
address complex  environmental issues. According to a July 2004 publication by the National
Science and Technology Council titled Science for the 21st Century., beginning in 1998, the U.S.
experienced a significant decline in science and engineering doctorates. EPA assists in efforts to
counteract this decline by offering five fellowship programs that encourage promising students to
pursue degrees and careers in environmentally-related fields:

    •   Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program:35 U.S. masters and doctoral
       students in environmental fields  compete for EPA's STAR fellowships through  a
       rigorous merit-based review process. The applicant's  proposed  area of research must
       aim to strengthen the scientific basis for environmental management and promote a
       broader  focus for future research  and environmental technology development. EPA
       provides assistance  for up to three years in the form of a stipend ($20,000/year),  a
       research budget ($5,000/year) and tuition assistance (up to $12,000/year).

    •   Greater Research Opportunities (GRO)  Undergraduate Fellowship Program:!  This
       program awards fellowships to undergraduates whose universities receive less than $35
       million annually in  federal science and  technology funds. For  qualifying students in
       environmental fields, EPA provides up  to  $19,250 a year  for  academic support and
       $8,000 for a three-month summer internship with EPA between the fellow's junior and
       senior years.

    •   Environmental Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program:36 In conjunction
       with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), EPA places
       qualified  technical  professionals  with   a Ph.D.  degree  or  equivalent into EPA
       headquarters for up to two years. Fellows design and work on projects that produce
35 For more information, see http://epa.gov/ncer/fellow/.
36 For more information, see http://fellowships.aaas.org/index.shtml.
                                           220

-------
       meaningful scientific research for environmental policy makers. The program awards
       annual stipends ranging between $70,000 and $95,000.

   •   Environmental  Public Health  Fellowship  Program:37  In  conjunction  with  the
       Association  of  Schools  of Public  Health  (ASPH),  EPA  provides  professional
       development opportunities to graduates of accredited U.S. schools of public health.
       Fellows gain real-world experience in environmental public health issues by working in
       EPA laboratory, regional, program or research management offices across the country.
       The program awards annual stipends of up to $50,000.

   •   EPA Marshall Scholarship Program:38  In partnership  with the Government of the
       United Kingdom, EPA awards  Marshall Scholars  approximately $40,000 a year for
       tuition and fees, a stipend, program-related expenses, and travel to and from the United
       States.  Since 1953, the Marshall  Scholarship Program has provided opportunities for
       highly motivated masters degree students to receive support for two years of study in
       Great Britain.  The program  places special emphasis on academic fields  that address
       global environmental problems or benefit multilateral efforts.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental  problems for the
past  40 years.  As  science advances, EPA is working towards and approach that allows the
Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges.

In FY 2012, EPA will strengthen its  planning  and delivery of science by implementing an
integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will  look at problems  from a
systems perspective to develop  a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and
inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach, EPA  is  integrating the Fellowships Program into the new
Sustainable  and Healthy  Communities  Research Program.  This new  program is aligned with
EPA's new Strategic Plan structure,  capitalizes on existing capabilities, and promotes the use of
a transdisciplinary perspective to further EPA's mission.  Within this integrated program, EPA's
Fellowships  Program will  continue to foster  long-term  investment  in the  enhancement of
environmental research and  development,  increased  promotion  of green  principles,  and an
increase in the nation's scientific education and workforce.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$526.0)  This decrease  reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •    (+$6,000.0) This request reflects increased funding for training the next generation of
       environmental  scientists and engineers under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
37 For more information, see http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=751&JobProg ID=1.
38 For more information, see http://www.marshallscholarship.org/applications/epa.
                                          221

-------
       Fellowship Program.  The increase supports the Administration's science and technology
       priority for investing in a diverse science,  technology,  engineering,  and mathematics
       education and workforce.

   •   (+$540.0  7+3.8 FTE) This increase reflects the  net result of realignments of resources
       such as critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
       to better align with programmatic priorities,  3.8 FTE with associated payroll of $505.0.
       Realignments of these  resources  are based  on  FTE allocations as well as scientific
       equipment needs. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
       help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

   •   (+$164.0)  This represents  a restoration of resources  transferred to the Research:
       Sustainability Program  to support Small Business  Innovation Research (SBIR). For
       SBIR, EPA is  required to set aside  2.5 percent of funding for contracts to  small
       businesses to  develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
       2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
       2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

   •   (-$17,261.0 /  -6.4 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
       Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program and includes 6.4 FTE and $664.0  in
       associated payroll.  This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems research,  as
       well as portions of Land;  Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides  and Toxics
       Research   Programs  into  a  transdisciplinary  effort  that   better  aligns  with the
       Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's
       ability to deliver science more  effectively and  efficiently, with  catalyzing innovative
       sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6981, Sec. 8001; HSWA; ERDDA; SARA, 42 U.S.C. 7401, Sec. 209 (a), Sec.
403 (a,b); CERCLA, 42 USC 9660, Sec.311; RCRA, 42 U.S.C.; OP A, BRERA.
                                          222

-------
                                               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

FY2010
Enacted
$161,511.0
$161,511.0
484.9

FY2010
Actuals
$158,721.8
$158,721.8
472.3

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$159,511.0
$159,511.0
484.9

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($161,511.0)
($161,511.0)
-484.9
Program Project Description:

EPA's Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program is a crucial scientific component of the
Agency's ability to protect Americans' public health and environment. The Human Health and
Ecosystems  program examines the interactions and impacts between ecosystems  and  human
activity.

Human Health Research
The Human Health Research Program (HHRP) develops sustainable technological innovations
aimed at protecting human health. The HHRP addresses the limitations,  gaps, and challenges
articulated in EPA's Report on the Environment (2008) and responds to recommendations in the
National Research Council's  reports "Toxicity Testing  in the 21st Century:  A Vision and a
Strategy" (2007)  and  "Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment"  (2009). Using a
"source-to-exposure-to-effects-to-disease" research  framework, HHRP  develops and links
indicators of risk, characterizes and reduce uncertainties in  risk assessment,  and  applies new
research information to real world settings. Advanced exposure models illuminate potential risks
of environmental  contaminants and characterize specific environmental exposures and stressors
that contribute to  current human health concerns. HHRP research catalyzes the development of
public health indicators that evaluate the  effectiveness of risk management decisions, especially
as they pertain to vulnerable populations such as children and  the elderly.

Ecosystems Services Research
The  Ecosystem  Services Research  Program  (ESRP) conducts solutions-based research that
enables  proactive environmental decision  making that conserves  and protects ecosystem
services. ESRP has made significant accomplishments in quantifying the ecological condition of
the nation's aquatic resources,  developing ecological  stressor-response  models,  methods  to
forecast alternative future scenarios, and creating methods to restore ecological functions and
ecosystem  services  within  degraded   systems.  ESRP  leverages  the   expertise of these
accomplishments  by integrating scientific resources  into a common research  framework. This
framework allows EPA to  assess and quantify ecosystem services and  determine how those
                                          223

-------
services are affected by  human behaviour. Using this information, ESRP develops decision
support tools that help policy makers implement scientifically-sound environmental decisions
and create incentives that eliminate or redirect problematic human behaviour. ESRP's research
approach provides the Agency with unique opportunities to produce environmental solutions at
lower cost and with fewer unintended consequences.

Additional research areas
In addition  to ESRP  and HHRP,  the  Human  Health and Ecosystems program  works  in
partnership with NASA to perform advanced monitoring research (AMI); conducts mercury
research, nanotechnology research and exploratory research; and develops the Agency's Report
on the Environment (ROE).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research  has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years.  The integrative nature of the Human Health and Ecosystems Research Program
gives  the Agency a unique ability to assess the relationship between environmental agents and
human health  and well-being. Currently, the Human Health and Ecosystem Services program,
along with the rest of EPA's research portfolio,  targets high-priority environmental issues and
provides technical support for implementing short-term solutions. As science has advanced, EPA
is working towards an approach that allows the Agency to address the increasing complexity of
21st century environmental challenges.

To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated research approach.  This approach will look at problems from a
systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and
inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Human Health and Ecosystem Services
program into the Air, Climate and Energy, Chemical Safety and Sustainability, and Sustainable
and Healthy Communities Research Programs.  These new programs are aligned with EPA's
new Strategic Plan structure,  capitalize on existing capabilities, and incorporate systems analysis
in problem  definition  and research methods  to further EPA's mission.  This  approach will
leverage  the capabilities of the  Human Health and Ecosystem program  and bridge traditional
scientific disciplines. Research  to address targeted, existing problems  and provide technical
support will  continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,254.0) This  represents  a restoration of resources  transferred to  the Research:
       Sustainability program  to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR). For
       SBIR,  EPA  is  required to set aside  2.5 percent  of  funding for contracts  to  small
       businesses to develop and commercialize  new environmental technologies. After the FY
       2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
       2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR program.
                                          224

-------
•  (+$1,186.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.

•  (+$800.0) This increase reflects a redirection of resources  to  the Human Health and
   Ecosystems program to fund ECOTOX, which is a database for locating single chemical
   toxicity data for  aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.  The ECOTOX database is
   relied upon  by EPA program and regional offices, as well as external stakeholders, as a
   source of ecological toxicity data.

•  (+$2,000.0) This reflects an increase to support the plan for a long-term review of EPA's
   laboratory network.  This cross-Agency integrated management approach reflects EPA
   labs,  centers  and  program  offices'  aim  to collaborate  across  traditional  program
   boundaries  to support  national and  regional decision-making. This investment will
   strengthen the Agency's ability to respond to environmental  and public health issues as
   "one EPA."

•  (+$133.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a shift of FTE resources from the Homeland Security
   Research Program to nanotechnology research.  The resource shift includes associated
   payroll of $133.0.

•  (-$1,104.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
   FTE.

•  (-$532.0)   This  reduction reflects  efficiencies  from several agencywide  Information
   Technology (IT) projects  such as  email optimization,  consolidated IT procurement,
   helpdesk standardization, and  others totaling  $10 million agencywide.  Savings  in
   individual  areas  are  partially  offset  by necessary financial system investments and
   increased mandatory  costs for  telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for
   FTE.

•  (-$150.0) This reflects a reduction to human health research integrating health indicators
   with socio-economic  indicators for  the Environmental Quality  Index (EQI).  EPA has
   deemed this research lower priority than other human health efforts.

•  (-$326.0) This decrease reflects the Agency working to  reduce its carbon footprint by
   reducing travel costs, promoting green travel practices, and moving routine meetings to a
   web or video conference format.

•  (-$836.0 /  -2.2  FTE)  This reflects  a reduction of programmatic  support resources
   resulting from expected efficiencies in providing operational support to  researchers.  It
   also includes a reduction of 2.2  programmatic FTE and associated payroll of-$293.0 that
   reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that  will help the Agency to better align
   resources, skills and Agency priorities,

•  (-$750.0) This reflects a reduction to  the nanotechnology research to delay research in
   using new energy applications, such  as  next-generation lithium-ion batteries,  as  case
   studies for  developing Life Cycle Assessment approaches for  nanomaterials.  This

                                       225

-------
   reduction also will delay FY 2012 commitments made to the international Organization
   for Economic Co-operation and Development to support development of non-animal test
   methods for nanomaterials, in particular for carbon nanotubes and silver nanoparticles.

•  (-$751.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative  Efficiency Initiative.
   This  initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
   including advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing and  supplies. EPA will
   continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
   and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$769.0 / -3.4 FTE) This decrease reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure
   FTE  and resources  such as  equipment purchases and repairs,  travel, contracts, and
   general expenses that are proportionally allocated across programs to better align with
   programmatic priorities.  The decrease includes a reduction of 3.4 FTE and decreased
   associated payroll of-$452.0.

•  (-$1,500.0) This reflects a reduction to human health research on screening assays and
   predictive toxicology approaches.  Research to develop new assays  and approaches will
   be delayed, slowing EPA efforts to transform the efficiency and effectiveness of toxicity
   testing.

•  (-$1,685.0) This reflects a reduction to ecosystems research for mapping and modeling
   current ecosystem  services and future  ecosystem  services predicted under  multiple
   scenarios.  The reduction will reduce and delay a number of research projects including
   EMAP condition monitoring, site-specific demonstration projects in the southwest, a site-
   specific demonstration project and use of remote sensing technology in the Albemarle-
   Pamlico Watershed, and the Regional Vulnerability Assessment toolkit.

•  (-$2,000.0) This reduction is the result of a supplemental appropriation included in FY
   2010 for oil spills research. This increase is not included in the FY 2012 Budget request.

•  (-$2,106.0 /  -2.2 FTE)  This reduction  reflects  savings  from  EPA's Administrative
   Efficiencies  Project (AEP),  a long-term  effort  to develop a  corporate  approach  to
   delivering administrative services and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
   will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. A portion  of
   these administrative savings ($1,000) will be  reinvested directly into science through
   STAR fellowships.  The change includes a decrease of 2.2 FTE with reduced associated
   payroll of $293.0 and reflects EPA's  workforce management strategy that will  help the
   agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$2,429.0 /  -3.1  FTE)  This reflects a reduction to the mercury Research Program and
   includes a reduction of 3.1 FTE  and decreased associated payroll  of  -$412.0.  The
   program will discontinue research examining mercury "hot spots'" evaluating  mercury
   emission measurement/control technologies, and assessing the impact  of different coals
   and technology configurations on coal combustion residues.  The program will  use data
   already generated to produce final products and reports.

                                       226

-------
   •   (-$3,000.0) This  reduction  is  the  result of an  increase  included  in the FY 2010
       Appropriation  providing an  additional  $3,000.0  for children's environmental health
       research in FY 2010. This increase is not included in the FY 2012 Budget request.

   •   (-$3,500.0)  This reduction reflects  decreased  funding for the Advanced  Monitoring
       Initiative. Research with the interagency Group on Earth Observations will focus only on
       those areas that are core EPA priorities; the remaining collaborative research with NASA
       will be integrated into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.

   •   (-$1,204.0 / -6.6 FTE) This reflects a transfer of FTE and resources for mercury research
       to the new Air, Climate and Energy Research Program. The reduced resources include -
       6.6  FTE and associated payroll of $886.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management
       strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

   •   (-$31,025.0 / -100.5 FTE)   This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for a
       portion of Human Health  Research and nanotechnology research to the new Chemical
       Safety and Sustainability program to better integrate chemical safety Research Programs.
       The reduced resources include 100.5 FTE and associated payroll of $12,606.0 and reflect
       EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources,
       skills  and Agency priorities.   This  transfer will  integrate the Endocrine Disrupting
       Chemicals, Computational Toxicology, and Nanotechnology Research Programs, as well
       as portions of Sustainability, Human Health, Pesticides and  Toxics, Human Health Risk
       Assessment  programs into  a  transdisciplinary  effort that better   aligns with  the
       Administration and Agency priorities.  EPA expects this effort will improve the ability to
       deliver science more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative sustainable
       solutions as the overall goal.

   •   (-$113,217.0 / -367.9  FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for a
       portion of Human Health Research,  Ecosystem Services Research, the Report on the
       Environment, and the Advanced Monitoring Initiative to the new Sustainable and Healthy
       Communities program. The reduced resources include 367.9 FTE and associated payroll
       of $49,335.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the agency
       better  align  resources, skills  and  Agency priorities.  This transfer will  integrate
       Fellowships and Ecosystems research; as well as portions of Land; Sustainability; Human
       Health; and Pesticides and  Toxics research into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns
       with the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the
       Agency's  ability to deliver  science more effectively and  efficiently,  with catalyzing
       innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

CAA,  42 U.S.C. 7403, 7404;  SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300J-1; ERDDA; CWA, 33  U.S.C. 1254;
FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136; FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.; RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6981; FQPA; TSCA, 15 U.S.C.;
USGCRA,  15 U.S.C. 2921
                                          227

-------
Program Area: Land Protection
             228

-------
                                              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
Inland Oil Spills
Hazardous Substance SuperrUnd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY2010
Actuals
$14,687.7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,334.0
$37,993.9
137.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($14,111.0)
($345.0)
($639.0)
($21,191.0)
($36, 286.0)
-154.7
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 topics.  EPA's Land Research Program
provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect America's land. Research
under this program has been evolving from waste treatment to beneficial reuse, avoidance of
more toxic materials, and operation of waste management facilities to conserve capacity and
produce energy. Research addresses resource conservation and material reuse issues, as well as
the application of alternative landfill covers and the benefits of landfill bioreactors.  To address
emerging  material  management  issues,  the program  made  a  strategic shift  to focus  on
nanomaterial fate and transport and associated risk management issues.

Research  efforts  are guided by  the  Land  Research  Program  Multi-Year Plan  (MYP),39
developed with input from across the Agency. The MYP outlines steps for meeting the needs of
the Research and  Development Program's clients and stakeholders and for evaluating progress
through annual performance goals and measures. Research under this Program supports human
health risk and exposure assessments and methods, which are conducted under the Human
Health Risk Assessment Program.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years. As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the
39 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program MYP. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more information,
see http://www.epa. gov/ord/htm/multi-yearplans.htm#land.
                                          229

-------
Agency to  address  the increasing  complexity  of 21st century environmental  challenges.
Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the  well-being of their residents and the
benefits of nature upon which they depend. Changing demographics; urbanization; competition
for food, materials, and  energy in a global economy; growing waste streams; changing climate;
and tighter  budgets  have exacerbated the challenges. Instead, a  more systems-oriented  and
synergistic approach is needed.

To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated research approach.  This approach will  look at problems from a
systems perspective to  develop  a deeper understanding  of our environmental challenges  and
inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach this, EPA is integrating the Land Preservation and Restoration
Research Program with the Fellowships, Human Health and Ecosystems, Sustainability,  and
Pesticides and  Toxics  Research Programs into  the Sustainable  and Healthy  Communities
Research  Program.  This new program  is directly  aligned with  EPA's  new  Strategic Plan
structure,  and capitalizes on  existing capabilities to accomplish EPA's mission. Research to
address targeted, existing  problems  and provide  technical  support  will continue,  with  an
emphasized  focus on sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (+$242.0 / +0.9 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and
   resources such as  equipment purchases and  repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses
   that are proportionately  allocated across  programs to  better align  with  programmatic
   priorities.  This  reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency
   better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (+$241.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.

•  (+$10.0)   This  represents   a restoration  of resources  transferred in  FY  2010 to  the
   Sustainability Research Program to  support Small Business Innovation  Research (SBIR).
   For SBIR EPA is  required  to set  aside 2.5  percent of funding for contracts to small
   businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental  technologies.   After the FY
   2012 budget is enacted, and  the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
   2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

•  (-$5.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
   initiative targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,  including
   advisory contracts, travel, general services,  printing and  supplies.  EPA will continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and  programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$83.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel footprint
   by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          230

-------
•  (-$124.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's technology infrastructure modernization
   plan (or Information Technology and telecommunications) resources. Realignment of these
   resources is based on FTE allocations.

•  (-$125.0 / -0.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources resulting
   from expected efficiencies  in providing  operational support to  researchers.   This change
   includes -$13.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
   will help the agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$154.0 / -0.3 FTE) This reduction reflects savings  from EPA's Administrative Efficiencies
   Project  (AEP),  a   long-term  effort  to  develop  a  corporate  approach  to  delivering
   administrative services. This change includes -$40.0 in associated payroll and reflects EPA's
   workforce management strategy that will help the agency better align resources, skills and
   Agency priorities.

•  (-$181.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•  (-$331.0 / -2.0 FTE) This reflects a redirection  of resources to Drinking Water research,
   reflecting the  natural evolution in research direction  from groundwater remediation issues to
   groundwater protection issues related to  carbon  sequestration. This reduction includes  2.0
   FTE with decreased associated payroll of $266.0.

•  (-$4,215.0 / -25.2 FTE)  This reflects  a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to  the new
   Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program and includes a transfer of $3,324.0 in associated
   payroll.   This transfer will integrate nanotechnology  research into the  transdisciplinary
   Chemical Safety  and Sustainability Program that better aligns with  Agency priorities.  EPA
   expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more effectively and
   efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

•  (-$9,386.0 / -32.1 FTE)  This reflects  a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to  the new
   Sustainable and  Healthy Communities  Program and includes  a  transfer  of $4,216.0 in
   associated  payroll. This   transfer will  integrate  land  restoration   research  into   the
   transdisciplinary  Sustainable and Healthy  Communities Program that better aligns with
   Agency priorities.   EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver
   science more  effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing  innovative,  sustainable solutions as
   the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Air Act Sections  103 and 104. 42 U.S.C. 7403, 42 U.S.C. 7404,103;  104; CWA  Sections
101,  104 & 404, 33 U.S.C. 1254;  Clinger Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C. 11318; CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1451
- Section 302;  E.G.  12866;  ERDDAA; ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 - Section 2;   FIFRA Sections 18
and 20; TSCA  Section 10. 15 U.S.C. 2609; WRRA.
                                           231

-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
                 232

-------
                                                                 Research: Sustainability
                                                    Program Area: Research: Sustainability
                                                Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                                                Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research

                                          Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
       Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$27,287.0
$73.0
$27,360.0
70.8
FY2010
Actuals
$25,807.8
$152.0
$25,959.8
73.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$27,287.0
$73.0
$27,360.0
70.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($27,287.0)
($73.0)
($27,360.0)
-70.8
Program Project Description:

EPA's  Science  and  Technology for  Sustainability  (STS) Research  Program  provides
technologies  and decision tools to inform  future risk management  decisions,  and provides
technical and scientific support to regional and national  Sustainability policies and initiatives.
These tools and support are provided through three main areas:

    •   Sustainability Metrics:.  The  STS Research Program focuses its efforts on developing
       scientifically-based Sustainability metrics and indices that will support understanding of
       the implications of different technology and risk management pathways, evaluation of
       regional ecosystem and human health Sustainability over time, and assessment  of how
       various management strategies can move a region towards Sustainability.

    •   Decision Support ToolsAO This research creates tools, models, and methods that provide
       information to decision makers on ways to evaluate environmental management issues,
       from a systems perspective, in  order to achieve sustainable outcomes. This research is
       built on the  foundation of life cycle and supply  chain  analysis techniques.   These
       techniques address the Sustainability of alternative policy options,  production pathways,
       and product  usage by  describing  the full environmental  impact  and  Sustainability
       implications of each alternative.

    •   Technologies:   This research emphasizes the development and testing of technologies
       that facilitate  sustainable  outcomes.  An example of ongoing technical work is the
       development  and evaluation of a new membrane technology that can recover  biofuel
       from biomass  streams at higher purity levels using 50 percent less energy and at lower
40 For more information, see http://www. epa. go v/ord/NRMRL/std/sab.

                                           233

-------
       cost than current technology. Programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research
       (SBIR) Program and the People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3) student design competition
       emphasize  finding  solutions to client-driven  problems while promoting  sustainable
       design and implementation  practices that generate research outputs in the form of
       innovative, inherently benign, integrated, and interdisciplinary designs that will advance
       the  scientific, technical, and  policy knowledge  necessary  to  further the goals  of
       sustainability.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems  for the
past 40 years.  As science advances, EPA is working towards and approach that allows the
Agency to address the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges.

In FY 2012  EPA will  strengthen its planning and delivery of science by implementing an
integrated research approach.  This approach will look at problems from a systems perspective to
develop  a  deeper understanding of  our environmental  challenges  and  inform  sustainable
solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the STS Research  Program into the new
Sustainable and Healthy Communities  Research Program.  This new program is aligned with
EPA's new Strategic Plan structure and capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPA's
mission. In addition, research on E-waste/E-design under the STS Research Program will be
integrated with the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability  Research Program.   Research to
address targeted, existing  problems and provide technical  support will  continue, with  an
emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$5,465.07 0.9 FTE) This reflects an increase for a new green chemistry and design for the
    environment initiative and includes associated payroll  of  $120.0.  It includes $1,000.0 for
    E-waste/E-design research  to improve  the sustainability of electronic  materials.   The
    proposed  research would develop new scientific information and tools that will lead to the
    development of safer chemicals, including nanomaterials.   Funds will be used to integrate
    data from multiple  scientific disciplines and sources into  innovative  user friendly decision
    tools, databases, and models for use by environmental  decision-makers.  This research will
    spur innovations in green chemistry as well as help develop: a scientifically and technically
    trained green chemistry workforce, approaches to inform and  engage communities about
    green chemistry,  and a  network  of green chemistry and engineering  centers to support the
    development and adoption of safer alternatives to chemical  substances.

•   (+$609.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•   (+$31.0)  This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.
                                          234

-------
•  (-$53.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint
   by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$99.0)  This   reduction  reflects efficiencies  from  several   agencywide  Information
   Technology projects such  as email optimization, consolidated  IT procurement, helpdesk
   standardization, and others totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may
   be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support
   for FTE.

•  (-$103.0) This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
   initiative  targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and  reductions, including
   advisory contracts, travel,  general services, printing and  supplies.  EPA will continue its
   work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$148.0 / -0.3 FTE) This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources associated
   with the  Sustainability  Research Program.   The reduced resources include  0.3 FTE and
   associated payroll of $40.0.

•  (-$209.0 / -0.9 FTE) This reduction  reflects savings from the Administrative Efficiencies
   Project  (AEP),  a long-term  effort  to develop  a  corporate  approach to  delivering
   administrative services.   The reduced resources  include 0.9 FTE and associated payroll of
   $120.0 and  reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better
   align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$610.0 / -3.5 FTE) This  reflects the  net result of realignments of infrastructure FTE and
   resources such as  equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts,  and general expenses
   that  are  proportionately allocated across  programs to  better  align with programmatic
   priorities.  This  includes a reduction of 3.5 FTE with decreased associated payroll of-$466.0
   and  reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better  align
   resources, skills  and Agency priorities.

•  (-$2,200.0)  This reflects a disinvestment of research in biofuels due to the completion of the
   2010 Report to Congress and Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture reports
   that are under development. The decrease will reduce EPA research on filling gaps identified
   in the  Report to Congress and limit EPA  planning for the 2013 Report to  Congress as
   required by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA.)

•  (-$3,183.0)  This reflects an  adjustment for Small  Business Innovation Research  (SBIR).
   Enacted funding levels  for  SBIR include the amount EPA is required to  set aside for
   contracts to  small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies.
   This adjustment  is necessary because the SBIR set aside, at this point in  the budget  cycle, is
   redistributed to  other Research Programs in the President's Budget request.  After the FY
   2012 budget is enacted, and  the exact amount of the mandated  requirement is known, FY
   2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.
                                          235

-------
•  (-$2,800.0)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources for biofuels to the new Air,
   Climate, and Energy Research Program.   There is  no associated payroll included  in the
   transfer.

•  (-$5,440.0 / -1.9 FTE)  This reflects a transfer  of dollar and FTE resources for the green
   chemistry and design for the environment, E-waste/E-design, and nanotechnology research to
   the new Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program. This transfer will integrate
   Endocrine Disrupters Chemicals; Computational  Toxicology;  and Nanotechnology Research
   Programs, as well as a portion of Human Health, Pesticides and Toxics, Human Health Risk
   Assessment, and Sustainability research into a transdisciplinary  effort that better aligns with
   the Administration and Agency priorities. EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's
   ability  to deliver science more  effectively and efficiently,  with  catalyzing  innovative
   sustainable solutions as the overall  goal.  The resources  include 1.9 FTE  and associated
   payroll of $126.0.

•  (-$18,547.0 / -65.1 FTE)   This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
   Sustainable  and  Healthy  Communities Research Program.   This transfer will integrate
   Fellowships and Ecosystems research, as well as portions of the Land; Sustainability; Human
   Health; and Pesticides  and Toxics Research Programs into  a  transdisciplinary effort that
   better  aligns  with the Administration and Agency priorities.  EPA expects  this effort will
   improve the  Agency's  ability  to  deliver  science more effectively and  efficiently, with
   catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal.  The resources include 65.1
   FTE and associated payroll of $9,130.0.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; CWA;  FIFRA; PPA;  RCRA: SOW A; SARA: TSCA; ERDAA; EISA.
                                           236

-------
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
                   237

-------
                                                         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

FY2010
Enacted
$27,347.0
$27,347.0
137.4

FY2010
Actuals
$27,423.6
$27,423.6
128.2

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$27,347.0
$27,347.0
137.4

FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($27,347.0)
($27,347.0)
-137.4
Program Project Description:

The Pesticides and Toxics Research Program develops methods, models, and data for use in
decisions by EPA's Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Program and other organizations.
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,  communities, and  ecosystems, with  a focus  on pesticides and toxic chemicals. The
Research Program has three major goals:
   •   Provide predictive tools to inform decision-making regarding high priority pesticides and
       toxic substances,
   •   Develop  probabilistic risk assessment methods  and  models to better protect wildlife
       populations, and
   •   Provide the  tools necessary to make risk management decisions related to products of
       biotechnology.
Research in the  Pesticides and Toxics Program strengthens  the  scientific foundation for the
Agency's actions to protect human health and the environment against unreasonable risks from
exposure to pesticides and toxic chemicals.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental  problems for the
past  40 years.   Unfortunately,  traditional research approaches are limited in their ability to
address the increasing complexity  of 21st  century  environmental  challenges.   Although
chemicals are  essential to modern life, we lack innovative systematic, effective, and efficient
approaches and tools to inform decisions that reduce the environmental and societal impact of
chemicals while increasing economic value.

To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated transdisciplinary research approach. This approach will look at
problems from a systems perspective  to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental
challenges and inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.
                                          238

-------
To  implement  this new approach, EPA is  integrating  the  Pesticides and  Toxics Research
Program into  the  Chemical  Safety  and Sustainability and  the Sustainable and  Healthy
Communities Research Programs.  These new programs are  directly aligned with  EPA's new
Strategic Plan  structure, capitalize  on  existing capabilities,  and promote  the use of a
transdisciplinary perspective to further EPA's mission. Research to address targeted, existing
problems and provide technical support will continue, with a focus on  sustainable  applications
and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1386.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs  for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$518.0 / +2.0 FTE)  This  reflects  a redirection of resources  from EDCs  research
       towards Pesticides and Toxics research to address exposure issues related  to potential
       chemical and/or pesticide stressors. This change includes 2.0 FTE with associated payroll
       of $266.0.  This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
       agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

    •   (+$125.0)  This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.

    •   (+$16.0) This  represents  a  restoration  of  resources  transferred to  the Research:
       Sustainability Program to  support  Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).  For
       SBIR, EPA is  required  to set  aside 2.5  percent of funding  for  contracts to small
       businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
       2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
       2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

    •   (-$13.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will  continue its
       work  to redesign processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •    (-$137.0 / -0.8 FTE)  This reflects  a  reduction  of  programmatic  support  resources
       associated with the  Pesticides and Toxics  Research Program.  The reduced resources
       include  -0.8 FTE and  associated  payroll of  -$106.0  and  reflect  EPA's workforce
       management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills  and Agency
       priorities.

    •   (-$50.0) This decrease  in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$201.0)  This  reduction reflects efficiencies from  several  Agencywide  Information
       Technology (IT)  projects such  as  email optimization,  consolidated  IT procurement,
                                           239

-------
       helpdesk standardization,  and others totaling $10  million  Agencywide.   Savings  in
       individual areas may be offset by increased mandatory costs for telephone and local area
       network (LAN) support for FTE.

   •   (-$354.0  / -0.7 FTE) This  reduction  reflects  savings from EPA's  Administrative
       Efficiencies  Project (AEP), a long  term effort to  develop a corporate  approach  to
       delivering administrative  services.   The  reduced  resources  include  0.7 FTE and
       associated payroll of -$93.0 and reflect EPA's workforce management strategy that will
       help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

   •   (-$332.0  / -1.7 FTE) This reflects the realignment  of resources for critical equipment
       purchases and facility repairs and  improvements across Agency Research Programs  to
       better align with programmatic priorities.  The reduced resources include -1.7 FTE and
       associated payroll of -$226.0.  Realignments are based on FTE allocations as well  as
       scientific equipment needs.

   •   (-$1,146.0 /  -0.9 FTE) This reflects a reduction to research supporting the development
       of scientific tools for biotechnology and  includes a reduction of 0.9 FTE with decreased
       associated payroll of -$120.0. The  program will reduce research into refining the use  of
       remote sensing as a tool for the management of insect resistance in genetically modified
       crops,  also  known as Plant Incorporated Pesticides  (PIP)  crops.  The program has
       completed research on decision support systems to identify insect infestations that would
       indicate the development of insect resistance.

   •   (-$12,116.0 / -58.2 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
       Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program.   Reduced resources include 58.2 FTE
       and associated payroll of $7,666.0. This transfer will integrate Pesticides and Toxics
       research  with Fellowships and  Ecosystems  research;  as well  as  portions  of Land;
       Sustainability and Human Health research into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns
       with Agency priorities.  This effort will  improve the Agency's ability to deliver science
       more effectively and efficiently, with catalyzing innovative, sustainable solutions as the
       overall goal.

   •   (-$15,043.0 / -77.1 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
       Chemical Safety and Sustainability Program to better integrate chemical safety Research
       Programs.  Reduced resources include 77.1  FTE and associated payroll of $10,023.0.
       This  transfer will integrate  Pesticides  and  Toxics  research  with  Computational
       Toxicology,  Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, and Nanotechnology research, along with
       portions of Human Health, Human Health Risk Assessment,  and Sustainability research
       into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with Agency priorities.  This effort will
       improve  the Agency's  ability to deliver science  more effectively and efficiently, with
       catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 103, 104 & 154;  CWA,  33 U.S.C. Sec.  101-121; ERDDAA, 42 U.S.C.
4361-4370; FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. Sec.  136; FQPA, 7  U.S.C.; TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2609.

                                           240

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Environmental Programs and Management

Resource Summary Table	245
Program Projects in EPM	246
Program Area:  Clean Air and Climate	252
   Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	253
   Climate Protection Program	257
   Federal Stationary Source Regulations	267
   Federal Support for Air Quality Management	273
   Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	282
   Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs	284
   Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund	288
Program Area:  Indoor Air and Radiation	291
   Indoor Air: Radon Program	292
   Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	295
   Radiation: Protection	298
   Radiation: Response Preparedness	301
Program Area: Brownfields	304
   Brownfields	305
Program Area: Compliance	309
   Compliance Assistance and Centers	310
Program Project Description:	310
   Compliance Incentives	312
   Compliance Monitoring	314
Program Area: Enforcement	322
   Civil Enforcement	323
   Criminal Enforcement	329
   Enforcement  Training	333
   Environmental Justice	335
   NEPA Implementation	339
Program Area:  Geographic Programs	342
   Great Lakes Restoration	343
                                       241

-------
   Geographic Program:  Chesapeake Bay	358
   Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay	368
   Geographic Program: Puget Sound	372
   Geographic Program: South Florida	375
   Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin	379
   Geographic Program:  Long Island Sound	381
   Geographic Program:  Gulf of Mexico	385
   Geographic Program:  Lake Champlain	391
   Geographic Program:  Other	394
Program Area: Homeland Security	400
   Homeland Security: Communication and Information	401
   Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	404
   Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	407
   Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	409
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach	411
   Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination	412
   Environmental Education	415
   Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	418
   Exchange Network	422
   Small Business Ombudsman	427
   Small Minority Business Assistance	430
   State and Local Prevention and Preparedness	433
   TRI / Right to Know	436
   Tribal - Capacity Building	439
Program Area: International Programs	444
   US Mexico Border	445
   International Sources of Pollution	449
   Trade and Governance	454
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	459
   Information Security	460
   IT / Data Management	463
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review	471
   Administrative Law	472
   Alternative Dispute Resolution	474
                                        242

-------
   Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance	476
   Legal Advice: Environmental Program	480
   Legal Advice: Support Program	483
   Regional Science and Technology	485
   Integrated Environmental Strategies	488
   Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis	494
   Science Advisory Board	500
Program Area:  Operations and Administration	502
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	503
   Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	508
   Acquisition Management	511
   Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	514
   Human Resources Management	517
Program Area:  Pesticides Licensing	521
   Endocrine Disrupters	522
   Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk	526
   Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk	532
   Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability	538
   Science Policy and Biotechnology	542
Program Area:  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	544
   RCRA:  Waste Management	545
   RCRA:  Corrective Action	550
   RCRA:  Waste Minimization & Recycling	554
Program Area:  Toxics Risk Review and Prevention	558
   Toxic Substances:  Chemical Risk Review and Reduction	559
   Pollution Prevention Program	570
   Toxic Substances:  Chemical Risk Management	580
   Toxic Substances:  Lead Risk Reduction Program	584
Program Area:  Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)	592
   LUST/UST	593
Program Area:  Water: Ecosystems	596
   National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways	597
   Wetlands	602
Program Area:  Water: Human Health Protection	607
                                        243

-------
   Beach/Fish Programs	608
   Drinking Water Programs	613
Program Area: Water Quality Protection	622
   Marine Pollution	623
   Surface Water Protection	629
                                         244

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
              APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management
                               Resource Summary Table
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted

$2,993,779.0
10,925.3
FY2010
Actuals

$2,988,874.6
10,793.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$2,993,779.0
10,925.3
FY2012
Pres Budget

$2,876,634.0
10,851.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($117,145.0)
-73.4
               Bill Language: Environmental Programs and Management

For environmental programs and management, including necessary expenses, not otherwise
provided for, for personnel and related costs and travel expenses; hire  of passenger motor
vehicles;  hire,  maintenance,  and  operation  of aircraft; purchase of reprints; library
memberships in societies or associations which issue publications to members only or at a price
to members  lower than to subscribers who are not members; administrative costs of the
brownfields program under the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act of 2002; and not to exceed $19,000 for official reception and representation expenses of
which $10,000 is for hosting the annual meeting  of the  Council of the  Commission for
Environmental Cooperation in the  United States  during FY2012, $2,876,634,000,  to remain
available  until September 30,  2013: Provided,  That of the funds made available under this
heading, at least $3,000,000 is for strengthening  the Agency's  acquisition workforce capacity
and capabilities: Provided further, That such funds may be transferred by  the Administrator to
any other account of the Agency to carry out the  purposes provided herein and that  such
transferred funds shall be  available for the same time period  as the account to which
transferred: Provided further, That with respect to the previous proviso, such transfer authority
is in addition to any other transfer authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That with
respect to the previous proviso, such funds shall be available for  training, recruitment, retention,
and hiring members of the  acquisition  workforce as  defined by  the  Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.): Provided further, That with respect
to the previous proviso,  such funds shall be available for information technology in support of
acquisition workforce effectiveness  or for  management solutions  to improve acquisition
management. Note.—A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time
the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution  (P.L.
111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by
the continuing resolution.
                                          245

-------
Program Projects in EPM
  (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Clean Air and Climate
Clean Air Allowance Trading
Programs
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Methane to markets
Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Registry
Climate Protection Program
(other activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection
Program
Federal Stationary Source
Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics
Program
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic
Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral
Fund
Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
Brownfields
Brownfields
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
FY2010
Enacted

$20,791.0

$52,606.0
$4,569.0
$16,685.0
$39,184.0
$113,044.0
$27,158.0
$99,619.0
$24,446.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$300,832.0

$5,866.0
$20,759.0
$11,295.0
$3,077.0
$40,997.0

$24,152.0

$25,622.0
$9,560.0
$99,400.0
FY2010
Actuals

$20,664.3

$42,138.0
$5,272.8
$15,990.7
$46,324.6
$109,726.1
$26,195.8
$103,224.6
$23,468.8
$6,159.4
$9,840.0
$299,279.0

$5,408.1
$19,253.0
$11,433.3
$2,827.9
$38,922.3

$24,465.3

$23,628.3
$8,792.6
$97,937.7
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$20,791.0

$52,606.0
$4,569.0
$16,685.0
$39,184.0
$113,044.0
$27,158.0
$99,619.0
$24,446.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$300,832.0

$5,866.0
$20,759.0
$11,295.0
$3,077.0
$40,997.0

$24,152.0

$25,622.0
$9,560.0
$99,400.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$20,842.0

$55,628.0
$5,616.0
$17,646.0
$32,529.0
$111,419.0
$34,096.0
$133,822.0
$0.0
$5,612.0
$9,495.0
$315,286.0

$3,901.0
$17,198.0
$9,629.0
$3,042.0
$33,770.0

$26,397.0

$0.0
$0.0
$119,648.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$51.0

$3,022.0
$1,047.0
$961.0
($6,655.0)
($1,625.0)
$6,938.0
$34,203.0
($24,446.0)
($322.0)
($345.0)
$14,454.0

($1,965.0)
($3,561.0)
($1,666.0)
($35.0)
($7,227.0)

$2,245.0

($25,622.0)
($9,560.0)
$20,248.0
          246

-------
Program Project
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
Geographic Programs
Great Lakes Restoration
Geographic Program: Chesapeake
Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: San Francisco
Bay
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Geographic Program: South Florida
Geographic Program: Mississippi
River Basin
Geographic Program: Long Island
Sound
Geographic Program: Gulf of
Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake
Champlain
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
Community Action for a
Renewed Environment
(CARE)
Geographic Program:
Other (other activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program:
Other
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
Homeland Security
Homeland Security:
Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical
FY2010
Enacted
$134,582.0

$146,636.0
$49,637.0
$3,278.0
$7,090.0
$18,258.0
$224,899.0

$475,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$50,000.0
$2,168.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0

$1,500.0
$2,448.0
$3,325.0
$7,273.0
$608,441.0

$6,926.0

FY2010
Actuals
$130,358.6

$145,896.6
$49,043.2
$3,220.0
$9,567.4
$18,313.4
$226,040.6

$430,818.2
$53,192.7
$1,752.3
$10,087.1
$40,040.4
$2,321.5
$0.0
$6,141.9
$7,671.7
$486.9

$996.0
$1,648.9
$1,901.0
$4,545.9
$557,058.6

$7,206.3

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$134,582.0

$146,636.0
$49,637.0
$3,278.0
$7,090.0
$18,258.0
$224,899.0

$475,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$50,000.0
$2,168.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0

$1,500.0
$2,448.0
$3,325.0
$7,273.0
$608,441.0

$6,926.0

FY2012
Pres Budget
$119,648.0

$191,404.0
$51,345.0
$0.0
$7,397.0
$18,072.0
$268,218.0

$350,000.0
$67,350.0
$0.0
$4,847.0
$19,289.0
$2,061.0
$6,000.0
$2,962.0
$4,464.0
$1,399.0

$955.0
$2,384.0
$1,296.0
$4,635.0
$463,007.0

$4,257.0

FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($14,934.0)

$44,768.0
$1,708.0
($3,278.0)
$307.0
($186.0)
$43,319.0

($125,000.0)
$17,350.0
$0.0
($2,153.0)
($30,711.0)
($107.0)
$6,000.0
($4,038.0)
($1,536.0)
($2,601.0)

($545.0)
($64.0)
($2,029.0)
($2,638.0)
($145,434.0)

($2,669.0)

247

-------
Program Project
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
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
International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
FY2010
Enacted

$99.0
$6,737.0
$6,836.0

$3,423.0
$0.0
$3,423.0
$6,369.0
$23,554.0

$7,100.0
$9,038.0
$51,944.0
$17,024.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$14,933.0
$12,080.0
$130,800.0

$4,969.0
$8,628.0
$6,227.0
$19,824.0
FY2010
Actuals

$156.1
$6,649.0
$6,805.1

$1,573.3
$2,690.9
$4,264.2
$6,300.3
$24,575.9

$5,715.8
$7,396.6
$52,787.0
$17,918.5
$3,488.5
$2,133.1
$13,426.7
$15,230.9
$13,040.9
$131,138.0

$4,997.8
$8,514.5
$6,359.8
$19,872.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$99.0
$6,737.0
$6,836.0

$3,423.0
$0.0
$3,423.0
$6,369.0
$23,554.0

$7,100.0
$9,038.0
$51,944.0
$17,024.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$14,933.0
$12,080.0
$130,800.0

$4,969.0
$8,628.0
$6,227.0
$19,824.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$0.0
$1,065.0
$1,065.0

$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,978.0
$11,300.0

$10,795.0
$9,885.0
$52,268.0
$20,883.0
$2,953.0
$2,280.0
$14,613.0
$16,463.0
$15,070.0
$145,210.0

$4,912.0
$8,302.0
$6,233.0
$19,447.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($99.0)
($5,672.0)
($5,771.0)

($3,423.0)
$0.0
($3,423.0)
($391.0)
($12,254.0)

$3,695.0
$847.0
$324.0
$3,859.0
($75.0)
($70.0)
$1,310.0
$1,530.0
$2,990.0
$14,410.0

($57.0)
($326.0)
$6.0
($377.0)
248

-------
Program Project
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management /
Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Legal Advice: Environmental
Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Regional Science and Technology
Integrated Environmental Strategies
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
Recovery Act Mangement and
Oversight
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
FY2010
Enacted

$5,912.0
$97,410.0
$103,322.0

$5,275.0
$1,147.0
$12,224.0
$42,662.0
$14,419.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$6,278.0
$123,597.0


$157,040.0
$13,514.0
$27,997.0
$116,687.0
$315,238.0
$82,834.0
$32,404.0
$25,487.0
$42,447.0
$0.0
$498,410.0
FY2010
Actuals

$5,881.7
$98,258.9
$104,140.6

$5,424.8
$1,313.8
$12,413.1
$42,826.7
$14,727.9
$3,146.2
$18,366.6
$19,041.3
$6,157.2
$123,417.6


$161,817.5
$2,539.3
$27,326.6
$118,555.4
$310,238.8
$86,883.5
$33,272.6
$24,311.6
$43,526.7
$22,237.5
$520,470.7
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$5,912.0
$97,410.0
$103,322.0

$5,275.0
$1,147.0
$12,224.0
$42,662.0
$14,419.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$6,278.0
$123,597.0


$157,040.0
$13,514.0
$27,997.0
$116,687.0
$315,238.0
$82,834.0
$32,404.0
$25,487.0
$42,447.0
$0.0
$498,410.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$6,837.0
$88,576.0
$95,413.0

$5,386.0
$1,329.0
$11,685.0
$45,352.0
$15,873.0
$3,283.0
$17,509.0
$22,326.0
$5,867.0
$128,610.0


$170,807.0
$11,221.0
$29,266.0
$113,671.0
$324,965.0
$77,548.0
$34,119.0
$26,223.0
$44,680.0
$0.0
$507,535.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$925.0
($8,834.0)
($7,909.0)

$111.0
$182.0
($539.0)
$2,690.0
$1,454.0
$12.0
($1,408.0)
$2,922.0
($411.0)
$5,013.0


$13,767.0
($2,293.0)
$1,269.0
($3,016.0)
$9,727.0
($5,286.0)
$1,715.0
$736.0
$2,233.0
$0.0
$9,125.0
249

-------
Program Project
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health
from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment
from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of
Pesticide Availability
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
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
FY2010
Enacted

$62,944.0
$42,203.0
$13,145.0
$1,840.0
$120,132.0


$0.0
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
$40,029.0
$14,379.0
$123,250.0

$8,625.0
$54,886.0
$18,050.0
$6,025.0
$14,329.0
$101,915.0

$12,424.0

FY2010
Actuals

$62,696.4
$41,584.5
$13,508.9
$1,349.5
$119,139.3


$0.0
$71,171.2
$71,171.2
$39,366.0
$13,063.3
$123,600.5

$8,513.2
$53,458.7
$18,014.5
$7,193.0
$13,429.3
$100,608.7

$12,833.9

FY2011
Annualized
CR

$62,944.0
$42,203.0
$13,145.0
$1,840.0
$120,132.0


$0.0
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
$40,029.0
$14,379.0
$123,250.0

$8,625.0
$54,886.0
$18,050.0
$6,025.0
$14,329.0
$101,915.0

$12,424.0

FY2012
Pres Budget

$58,304.0
$37,913.0
$12,550.0
$1,756.0
$110,523.0


$2,000.0
$64,854.0
$66,854.0
$40,266.0
$9,751.0
$116,871.0

$8,268.0
$70,939.0
$15,653.0
$6,105.0
$14,332.0
$115,297.0

$12,866.0

FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($4,640.0)
($4,290.0)
($595.0)
($84.0)
($9,609.0)


$2,000.0
($3,988.0)
($1,988.0)
$237.0
($4,628.0)
($6,379.0)

($357.0)
$16,053.0
($2,397.0)
$80.0
$3.0
$13,382.0

$442.0

250

-------
Program Project
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
Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Subtotal, Congressionally
Mandated Projects
TOTAL, EPA
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$32,567.0
$25,940.0
$58,507.0

$2,944.0
$102,224.0
$105,168.0

$13,397.0
$208,626.0
$222,023.0

$16,950.0
$16,950.0
$2,993,779.0
FY2010
Actuals
$33,030.3
$29,796.8
$27,130.2
$89,957.3

$2,981.4
$99,394.2
$102,375.6

$9,783.7
$201,136.3
$210,920.0

$29,700.0
$29,700.0
$2,988,874.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$0.0
$32,567.0
$25,940.0
$58,507.0

$2,944.0
$102,224.0
$105,168.0

$13,397.0
$208,626.0
$222,023.0

$16,950.0
$16,950.0
$2,993,779.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$27,058.0
$27,368.0
$54,426.0

$2,708.0
$104,616.0
$107,324.0

$13,417.0
$212,069.0
$225,486.0

$0.0
$0.0
$2,876,634.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
($5,509.0)
$1,428.0
($4,081.0)

($236.0)
$2,392.0
$2,156.0

$20.0
$3,443.0
$3,463.0

($16,950.0)
($16,950.0)
($117,145.0)
251

-------
Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                252

-------
                                                  Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
                                                      Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                          Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$20,791.0
$9,963.0
$30,754.0
88.6
FY2010
Actuals
$20,664.3
$9,329.3
$29,993.6
83.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$20,791.0
$9,963.0
$30,754.0
88.6
FY2012
Pres Budget
$20,842.0
$9,797.0
$30,639.0
86.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$51.0
($166.0)
($115.0)
-1.9
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 the
U.S. electric power generation industry.  The program continues to be recognized as a model for
flexible and effective air pollution regulation, both in this country and abroad.  The 862 program
uses a market-based approach with tradable units called "allowances" (one allowance authorizes
the emission of one ton of SC>2 in a given or later year).  The authorizing legislation sets a
permanent  cap on the total amount of SO2 that may be emitted annually by affected electric
generation units (EGUs) in the contiguous U.S. The program was phased in, with the final 862
cap beginning in 2010  set at 8.95 million tons, a level at approximately one-half the amount
these sources emitted in 1980. Both the SC>2 and NOX program components require accurate and
verifiable measurement of emissions.

The program also is responsible for implementing U.S. commitments under the US-Canada Air
Quality Agreement of 1991 to reduce and  maintain lower SC>2 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).  For  additional  information  on  the   Acid  Rain  Program,  please   visit
http ://www. epa.gov/acidrain.

In 2009, total SC>2 emissions from  3,572  affected  EGUs were 5.7 million tons, over 3 million
tons below the statutory annual permanent cap.1 Total NOX emissions were 2.0 million tons, a
drop of 1.0 million tons from 2008.  Despite this significant achievement, EPA health studies and
ecological  assessments, analyses  by the  Interagency National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program (NAPAP),2  and data from long-term  monitoring networks all  indicate that further
reductions in 862 and NOX emissions, beyond those specified in Title IV, are necessary to allow
1 US EPA, Acid Rain and Related Programs:  Acid Rain and Related Programs: 2009 Highlights,, December 2010
(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkwts/progress/ARP09_4.html'l. Pages 1-4.
2 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress: An Integrated Assessment. 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/resource/docs/NAPAP.pdfPages 65-73.
                                           253

-------
sensitive  forests and  aquatic  ecosystems  to recover  from  acidification.    The  program's
environmental  objective to improve affected ecosystems  cannot be attained without more
reductions in 862 and NOX, the key pollutants involved in the formation of acid rain.  These
assessments also show that significant additional reductions in these emissions are needed for
many areas in the U.S. to achieve and maintain health-based protective air quality standards for
fine particulate matter (PM^.s) and ozone.  The  NAPAP Report  to Congress estimates these
additional reductions need to be 40-80 percent.3

At the request of the states, EPA administered the NOX Budget Program (NBP), a regional cap-
and-trade program for reducing NOX emissions and transported ozone in the  eastern U.S., for
over a decade.  The NBP was established initially in the late  1990s, under a Memorandum of
Understanding  among nine states and  Washington D.C.,  in the  Northeast Ozone Transport
Region (OTR).  These states recognized the efficiencies and economies of scale associated with
centrally-administered   systems  for allowance  trading,   emissions  reporting,  and  true-
up/compliance  determination,  so  they sought EPA's expertise to establish and  operate these
systems  for their  market-based  program.    The NBP   expanded  under  the  NOX State
Implementation Plan (SIP)  call, which operated from 2003 - 2008. Twelve (12) states from the
Midwest and Southeast  were  added  and the  number  of affected sources doubled.  Affected
sources included  boilers, turbines, and combined  cycle units from  a diverse set of industries as
well as utility EGUs.

In 2009, the NBP transitioned under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the CAIR seasonal
NOX  program  for  control of transported  ozone  pollution  and  summer  NOX emissions.
Approximately  600 units in  six additional  states,  which were not subject to NBP, reported
emissions data  for compliance with  the seasonal CAIR NOX program and  participated  in the
EPA-administered regional allowance trading program. Ozone season NOX emissions fell in
every state in the program. Units in the seasonal program reduced their overall NOX emissions
from 689,000 tons in 2008  to 495,000 tons in 2009.  A 22 percent improvement in emission rate
coupled with an 11 percent drop in heat  input accounted for this reduction. States and sources in
the  CAIR seasonal NOX program that contribute to  ozone pollution in downwind states will be
transit!oning in 2012  into the seasonal NOx program under the Transport Rule  for  ozone
control.4

The National Academy of Sciences5 commended EPA on its Acid Rain 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 and uses
the  Temporally  Integrated Monitoring  of Ecosystems (TIME) and  Long-Term Monitoring
(LTM) Programs for assessing how  water bodies  and aquatic ecosystems are responding to
reductions in sulfur and nitrogen  emissions.  The Acid Rain Accountability Program  issues
comprehensive  annual reports on compliance and  environmental results from implementation of
the  Acid Rain and CAIR trading programs.  These reports  track progress in not only reducing
SO2 and NOX emissions from the affected sources, but also assess the impacts of these reductions
3 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress: An Integrated Assessment. 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/resource/docs/NAPAP.pdfPage 73.
4 Please visit http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports.html for additional information on the CAIR seasonal NOX
program.
5 National Academy of Sciences Report: Air Quality Management in the United States. 2004. www.nap.edu/catalog/10728.html


                                           254

-------
on acid deposition, air quality (e.g., ozone levels), surface water acidity, forest health, and other
environmental indicators.

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 also can be formed through chemical  reactions in the air. Emissions of SC>2 and NOX
can be chemically transformed into sulfates and nitrates ("acid rain paniculate"), which are very
tiny particles that can be carried, by winds, hundreds of miles. When inhaled, these fine particles
can cause serious respiratory problems, particularly for individuals who suffer from asthma or
are in sensitive populations.  Numerous studies have even linked these exposures with premature
mortality from heart and lung diseases.  These same small particles also are a main pollutant that
impairs visibility across large areas of the country, particularly damaging in national  parks
known for their scenic views.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012; the program is projected to measure, quality assure, and track emissions for SC>2
and/or NOX from  Continuous  Emissions  Monitoring systems  (CEMs) or equivalent  direct
measurement methods at over 4,600 EGUs.  In  addition, the program will conduct audits and
certify emission monitors.  Allowance transfers are recorded in  electronic tracking systems and
the allowances  held  are reconciled against emissions for all affected sources  to ensure
compliance.

Nitrogen dioxide emissions also contribute substantially to the formation of ground-level ozone.
Ozone, when  inhaled in sufficient concentrations, can cause  serious respiratory problems.
Achieving and maintaining  EPA's national air quality standards is an important step towards
ensuring the air is safe to breathe.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with states, tribes, and
local government partners toward this goal.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(A01) Maintain annual
emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) from
electric power
generation sources
nationwide at or below
6 million tons
FY 2010
Target



8,450,000



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



8,450,000



FY 2012
Target



6,000,000



Units



Tons



EPA  tracks  the  annual emissions  of SC>2  from  utility  electric  power  generation  sources
nationwide to assess the effectiveness of the  Acid Rain  and related programs with annual
performance targets.
                                           255

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$252.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$114.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets  certain categories  of  spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel,  general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$66.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as
       email optimization, consolidated  IT  procurement,  helpdesk standardization, and  others
       totaling $10 million agencywide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

    •  (-$21.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •  (-1.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                           256

-------
                                                            Climate Protection Program
                                                      Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                     Objective(s): Address Climate Change

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$113,044.0
$19,797.0
$132,841.0
226.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$109,726.1
$20,126.8
$129,852.9
243.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$113,044.0
$19,797.0
$132,841.0
226.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$111,419.0
$16,345.0
$127,764.0
258.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($1,625.0)
($3,452.0)
($5,077.0)
32.4
Program Project Description:

EPA's Climate Protection Program promotes efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
through voluntary programs, and  supports the Administration's priority of taking action on
climate change.  It also provides technical assistance and online reporting tools for regulated
facilities to report annual greenhouse gas emissions in support of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program.

EPA's voluntary  public-private partnership  programs are 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  avoid
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from power plants, mobile sources, and various other sources.

EPA's Climate Protection Program has  achieved real reductions of carbon dioxide (CC^) and
other greenhouse gases,  such as  methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated greenhouse  gases -
including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons  (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SFe).
EPA's climate change programs promote energy efficiency and emissions reductions of non-CC>2
greenhouse gases.   Actions taken today will continue to deliver environmental and economic
benefits for many years to come, since the investments made by EPA partners as a result of EPA
programs often have  lifetimes  of ten years or more. For  every dollar spent by EPA on its
voluntary 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 CC^),
delivered more than $75  in energy bill savings, and facilitated more than $15 in private sector
investment.6 This is based upon cumulative reductions since 1995.

EPA manages a number of voluntary efforts, such as  the ENERGY STAR program, SmartWay
Transport Partnership, clean energy partnerships, and multiple programs on non-CC>2 greenhouse
gases,  all  of  which remove barriers in  the  marketplace in order  to deploy  cost-effective
6 Climate Protection Partnerships Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
http://www.energvstar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/2009%20CPPD%20Annual%20Report.pdf
                                          257

-------
technologies faster. EPA programs do not provide financial subsidies.  Instead, they work by
overcoming widely  acknowledged  barriers  to energy  efficiency  and deployment of GHG
reduction measures such as: 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  started the ENERGY  STAR  program in  1992. The program achieves  significant and
growing greenhouse gas  reductions by dismantling identifiable and pervasive market barriers
stifling  the adoption of cost-effective,  energy-efficient  technologies and  practices in  the
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. In  1996, the U.S. Department  of Energy (DOE)
joined with EPA and assumed specific  ENERGY STAR  program responsibilities for several
product categories. A new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on September 30,
2009 by EPA and the DOE. The MOU clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of EPA and
DOE  and  strengthens  coordination between the  two agencies. It builds upon the agencies'
respective areas of expertise and puts EPA in charge  of the ENERGY  STAR brand.  EPA now
manages the specification process for all product categories (more than 60) and continues to
implement the new and existing homes programs. For commercial buildings,  EPA is the brand
manager when  ENERGY STAR is applied to whole  buildings, including marketing, outreach,
monitoring and verification and performance  levels.   DOE  supports ENERGY  STAR with
product testing and verification, including referring any  products that fail its tests to EPA for
enforcement action,  and manages building  test  procedures,  establishment  of a  commercial
building asset rating and a master database  of buildings, among other responsibilities.  The
ENERGY STAR program continues to yield significant results. In 2009 alone, Americans, with
the help of ENERGY STAR, prevented more than 168  million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent  (MMTCO2E),  saving $17 billion on their annual utility bills. ENERGY STAR is on
track to  avoid 190 MMTCO2E of greenhouse gases in 2012. 7

EPA also manages the implementation of the Global Methane  Initiative (GMI), formerly called
the Methane to Markets program, a U.S. led, international public-private partnership that brings
together 38 Partner governments and over 1,000 public  and private  sector organizations to
advance methane recovery and use  as a clean energy source.  GMI builds on the success of
EPA's domestic methane  programs and focuses on advancing project development at agriculture
operations, coal mines,  landfills, and oil and gas systems. In 2012, EPA will be working with its
partners to strengthen  and expand the Initiative to include new resource  commitments from
developed  countries, explore opportunities to reduce emissions from  new  sources, such as
wastewater treatment,  and to  develop  country action  plans  to  help  direct and  coordinate
international efforts.  As  of 2011, the US is supporting over 300 projects around the world and
has leveraged  over $387  million in  public and private sector  investments.  These projects  are
expected to reduce  emissions  by 63  million  metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2E)
annually.8

EPA's SmartWay Partnership Program works with transportation technology and freight industry
partners (shippers,  carriers, logistics companies) to accelerate the deployment of fuel saving, low
emission technologies and to promote  GHG reductions  across the global  supply chain.   The
7 Additional information at: www. energystar. gov
8 Additional information at: www. epa. gov/globalmethane and www.methanetomarkets. org
                                          258

-------
SmartWay program started in February 2004 with 15 partners, and in June 2010, it passed the
2,700 partner mark. Since 2002, our SmartWay partners have saved 1.5 billion gallons of diesel
fuel, nearly 14.7 million metric tons of CO2, 215,000 tons of NOx, and over 8,000 tons of PM.
SmartWay partners have saved over $3.6 billion in fuel costs.

SmartWay  is the  only  voluntary  program  working  across the  entire freight  system to
comprehensively  address  GHG  emissions and  air pollution.   Numerous  states,  countries,
international organizations and private companies now rely on SmartWay's supply chain tools,
testing protocols and public-private partnership approach for  their freight transport  efficiency
programs. California has used SmartWay verified technologies and  testing protocols for their
GHG programs and numerous states have used SmartWay's model  idle-reduction ordinances.
Canada,  Mexico, China, and  the European Union  are  currently using or  in the process of
adopting all or many of the critical elements of the SmartWay program.

The  SmartWay program has developed a unique partnership with the major  class 8  truck and
trailer manufacturers, which culminated in the joint development of a SmartWay branded tractor-
trailer that achieves a 20  percent improvement in fuel efficiency.  This partnership also has
provided critical information for EPA's heavy duty diesel regulatory program.  All major class 8
truck and trailer manufacturers now offer at least one SmartWay model, and the SmartWay
branded vehicle has already achieved a 5 percent market penetration.

EPA manages a number of other partnership programs that tailor their approach to specific trades
or organizations in the arena of climate change.  The Clean Energy-Environment State  and Local
Program provides assistance to local and state  governments for improving their facilities, and
leading  energy efficiency-related  GHG reduction efforts.  EPA's Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) Partnership promotes cost-effective CHP projects,  while its Green Power Partnership
supports the procurement of green power.

In addition to EPA's voluntary climate change programs, EPA provides analytical and technical
support  for Congress and Administration policymakers related to national climate change and
energy policy, including support for analysis of international issues.

   •  EPA's climate  change analysis builds on  the understanding of the  emission  and
       sequestration of greenhouse gases, for all greenhouse gases and from all sectors of the
       economy; and the economic, technical and policy issues related to wider deployment of
      key  technologies  (e.g., energy efficiency, transportation,  non-CC>2 greenhouse gases,
       carbon capture and storage).

   •  EPA's economic analyses  cover key questions such as:   which technologies could be
       expected to be most effective under alternative policy scenarios and the implications of
       alternative policy approaches on the U.S. economy and global competitiveness.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

   •  EPA  will continue to implement its government/industry  partnership efforts to  achieve
      greenhouse gas reductions.  In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these
                                          259

-------
   efforts are projected to reduce other forms of pollution, including criteria and toxic air
   pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter, and mercury by accelerating
   the adoption of energy efficient products and practices.

•  EPA will have completed the phase out of the Climate Leaders program at the end of FY
   2011. In FY 2012, EPA will still support the General Services Administration's pilot to
   assist small federal suppliers in developing their GHG inventories. EPA will conduct
   technical trainings,  review inventories  submitted by pilot participants  and maintain the
   list of participants on the EPA website.

•  EPA  will  continue  to implement the ENERGY STAR program across the residential,
   commercial, and industrial sectors consistent with the EPA/DOE MOU:

     o   Accelerating the rate that product specifications are updated in terms of stringency.
         For product categories with rapidly evolving models (e.g., consumer electronics,
         office equipment), specifications will be updated about every two years and, where
         appropriate, will include out-year specification criteria so that industry can
         anticipate upcoming revisions. For all other product categories, EPA will
         consistently monitor market share  and launch revisions, as appropriate.

     o   Pursuing comprehensive enhancements for ENERGY STAR product qualification
         and verification. The process began in 2010 and FY 2012 will be the first full year
         of implementation. Enhancements include:

              •    All ENERGY STAR qualified products will be certified as  meeting
                  program requirements by an accredited third-party certification  body.
                  Certification will include qualification testing before product labeling as
                  well as post-market verification testing to confirm that products continue
                  to meet program requirements.

                  All product testing will  be conducted in EPA-recognized laboratories that
                  have demonstrated technical competence, strong quality management
                  processes, and impartiality towards test results.

                  EPA will continue to solicit applications from accreditation bodies,
                  laboratories, and certification bodies that wish to participate in the
                  program. Requirements for EPA recognition of these organizations will
                  build upon international standards, including provisions that they
                  demonstrate  impartiality.

         o  Reviewing ENERGY STAR product categories to ensure that they are still
           appropriate; process began in 2010 and will be  complete in 2011.

         o  Enhancing the use of the ENERGY STAR label on products by adding products
           to the program.
                                       260

-------
     o  Strengthening the ENERGY STAR New Homes program by implementing the next
        version of the ENERGY STAR specification (version 3) by 2012 to provide a
        business advantage for builders in a soft market and great benefits to homeowners
        including additional installation checklists for HVAC equipment, insulation and
        water management to achieve better quality control of comfort and energy savings
        benefits.  In addition, EPA will be working with DOE to consolidate the existing
        homes program at DOE.

     o  Expanding ENERGY STAR programs that improve the installation of products
        such as heating and cooling equipment whose efficiency is greatly affected by
        installation practices.

     o  Expanding efforts to promote improvement of commercial buildings and industrial
        facilities through EPA's ENERGY STAR tools, resource, and outreach campaigns.

     o  Engaging regional, state, and utility energy efficiency programs and smaller trade
        associations in the new ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry as a primary
        method of reaching diffuse industries and small and medium enterprises while
        continuing with the ENERGY STAR Industrial Focuses.

     o  Expanding building performance with ENERGY STAR to offer consistent whole
        building assessments to utilities and service providers.

The FY 2012 Budget Request for the ENERGY STAR program totals $55.6 million.

•  EPA will 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  anti-idling technologies,  lower rolling
   resistance tires, improved aerodynamic truck designs, and  improved  freight logistics.
   SmartWay also will expand its efforts to:

     o  develop GHG  accounting protocols for  heavy-duty  diesel trucks  and explore
        opportunities to evolve protocols for the multimodal freight supply chain network;
     o
promote  SmartWay  certified  light duty  and heavy duty  vehicles that meet
SmartWay's criteria for environmentally superior performance;
     o  expand our  SmartWay  partner  recruiting  efforts while  streamlining  partner
        management processes;

     o  update, as  needed,  federal  guidance  on  low  GHG-emitting  vehicles  for
        implementation of Energy  Independence and Security Act (EISA)  Section  141
        Federal vehicle purchase requirements;

     o  continue to provide expertise and serve as a technical test bed in support of the
        Agency's future policy direction for greenhouse gas emissions; and
                                      261

-------
         o  promote  the  adoption  of SmartWay  methods  and tools  internationally through
            stakeholder development, information sharing, and collaboration on pilot projects.

The  FY  2012 Budget Request for  the  SmartWay Transport Partnership  program totals $2.7
million.

   •  Continue the  Global Methane  Initiative  (GMI)  and  enhance public-private  sector
       cooperation to reduce global methane emissions and deliver clean energy to markets.
       EPA will be supporting the  development and implementation of methane recovery and
       use projects at landfills,  agricultural waste  operations,  coal  mines,  wastewater,  and
       natural gas and oil facilities in key developing countries and countries with economies in
       transition. EPA support will involve identifying and addressing technical, institutional,
       legal, regulatory and other  barriers to  project development and  will be targeted to
       leverage investments and  assistance provided by the private sector and other partners
       through the GMI's country action plans.  The FY 2012 Budget Request for the Global
       Methane Initiative totals $5.7 million.

   •  Continue policy and technical  assistance to  developing countries and  countries with
       economies-in-transition to monitor, report, and verify greenhouse gas  emissions  and
       sequestration through cost-effective measures and  assist  in the fulfillment of the U.S.
       obligations under the U.N.  Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

   •  Continue to address several  critical  air and  climate-related issues related to commercial
       scale deployment of carbon  capture and sequestration (CCS) technology,  implementing
       the recommendations of the President's  Task Force on  Carbon Capture  and Storage.
       These issues  and related  activities  include, but are not limited to:  creating a strong
       regulatory framework for all  stages of CCS  projects; addressing issues for the long-term
       stewardship at sequestration sites; evaluating technical and economic implications of
       applying  carbon dioxide capture to currently regulated industry sectors,  including the
       potential for increases or decreases in emissions of other criteria pollutants resulting from
       CCS retrofits; and collaborating with other agencies to address issues pertaining to public
       understanding and acceptance of the technology.

   •  Continue to implement the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.  Established in October
       2009, this program has  a  total of 31 sectors of which 11 were added  in 2010.   The
       Agency expects efforts  by  both headquarters and regional offices to implement  this
       program for approximately  13,000 reporters.  The first annual reports from the largest
       GHG emitting facilities (-10,000  reporters), covering  calendar  year  2010, will  be
       submitted to EPA on March 31, 2011.  Reports for the sectors added in 2010 (-3,000
       reporters) will be due in March 2012. In order to prepare for this, focus areas in FY 2012
       for the GHG Reporting Rule  will include:

         o  expanding the database management systems for the new sectors and updating it as
            necessary for the existing reporters;
                                           262

-------
         o  verifying reported data, through a combination of electronic reviews and on-site
            audits and developing and deploying verification protocols for new sectors;

         o  providing guidance and  training  to  reporters from the newly  added sectors  and
            using the results of verification  to  focus the training and outreach to existing
            reporters to ensure that they report in  an accurate and timely manner; and

         o  developing the data publication tools to share the reported data with the public,
            within the Federal Government,  with state and local governments,  and  with
            reporting entities to support improved understanding of both emission levels  and
            opportunities for GHG reductions. First publication of the data will occur on June
            15,2011.

       In FY 2012, the budget request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is $17.7 million.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(G02) Million metric
tons of carbon
equivalent
(MMTCO2e) of
greenhouse gas
reductions in the
buildings sector.
FY 2010
Target



143



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



156.9



FY 2012
Target



168.7



Units



MMTCO2e



Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(G06) Million metric
tons of carbon
equivalent
(MMTCO2e) of
greenhouse gas
reductions in the
transportation sector.
FY 2010
Target



15.8



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



26.4



FY 2012
Target



41.4



Units



MMTCO2e



Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(G16) Million metric
tons of carbon
equivalent
(MMTCO2e) of
greenhouse gas
reductions in the
industry sector.
FY 2010
Target



304



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



346.2



FY 2012
Target



372.9



Units



MMTCO2e



                                           263

-------

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(G17) Percentage of
registered facilities that
submit required and
complete GHG data by
the annual reporting
deadline of March 3 1 .

FY 2010
Target






FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target






FY 2012
Target


100



Units


Percent


There are over 20 climate change programs that 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.

Work under the Greenhouse  Gas Reporting Program  supports the Agency's Priority Goal,
addressing measuring and controlling Greenhouse Gases. A list of the Agency's Priority Goals
can be found in  Appendix A.   For a  detailed  description of the EPA's Priority Goals
(implementation strategy, measures and milestones) please visit www.Performance.gov.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$2,270.07  -20.7 FTE)  This  decrease  in FTE for  "other climate change programs"
       represents an adjustment to the FY 2010 base  budget for both the ENERGY STAR
       program and "other climate change programs" of -13.2 FTE as well as a shift of-7.5  FTE
       to support the Global Methane Initiative.

   •   (+$3,022.07 +24.2 FTE)   This increase in FTE for the ENERGY  STAR program
       represents an adjustment to the FY 2010 base  budget for both the ENERGY STAR
       program and the "other climate change programs" of+13.2 FTE from within the program
       project, as well as  a request for an additional +11.0 FTE to expand the ENERGY STAR
       program across the residential, commercial, and industrial  sectors.  The total increase
       includes an additional $3,148.0 in payroll and $43.0 in travel.

   •   (+$1,047.07 +7.5 FTE) This increase in FTE reflects a shift in resources from "other
       climate change program" activities to support the Global Methane Initiative (formerly the
       Methane  to Markets program).  The  request includes $1,037.0  in additional payroll
       funding.

   •   (+$2,461.07 +20.0  FTE) These resources are requested to support the Greenhouse Gas
       Reporting Rule, including 20.0 FTE with associated payroll of $2,797.0.  Of the 20 FTE,
       10 FTE will handle the general reporting and verification workload across the many
       industry sectors and emission sources and 10 FTE will work with states and follow-up on
       specific issues.   Funding will decrease by $336.Ok as we complete some initial  systems
       work.
                                         264

-------
•  (-$1,500.0)  This reflects funding that was transferred from the EPM appropriation to the
   STAG appropriation to support the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GGRP). The
   STAG funds  will be  used by  states  to facilitate the collection,  review and  use  of
   greenhouse  gas emissions data collected under EPA's GGRP  and linked state-based
   reporting programs.

•  (-$5,000.0)  This reflects a reduction in analytical assistance, such as economic modeling
   of proposed climate and energy legislation and policy scenarios.

•  (-$1,515.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
   This  initiative targets  certain categories of spending for  efficiencies  and reductions,
   including advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing and  supplies.  EPA will
   continue its work to redesign processes and  streamline activities in both administrative
   and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$1,086.0)  This reduction reflects  the phase out of the Climate Leaders program at the
   end of FY 2011.

•  (+$2,000.07  +2.0  FTE)    This  increase  reflects  the   work   to   implement  the
   recommendations of the  President's Interagency  Task Force on Carbon  Capture and
   Storage.   Total funding includes $280.0 in payroll costs  and $7.0 in travel funding.
   Funds will  support efforts to identify, analyze and address key gaps to near-term and
   long-term demonstration  and deployment of CCS technologies.   Funds  will support
   development and implementation of a comprehensive public outreach strategy.

•  (+$882.0)  This increase  reflects   increased  extramural  support  for outreach and
   communication for EPA's voluntary climate change programs.

•  (-0.6  FTE) This decrease reflects a  realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
   rates.

•  (-$100.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce  the  Agency's travel
   footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$66.0)  This  reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as
   email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and  others
   totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
   mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

•  (+$500.0) This reflects resources for web tools and technology infrastructure  to support
   activities across the program.
                                       265

-------
Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401  et seq. - Sections  102,  103,  104 and 108; Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603,  6604 and 6605; National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.  4321 et seq. - Section 102; Grand Canyon
Protection Act (GCPA), 15 U.S.C. 2901 -  Section 1103; Federal Technology  Transfer Act
(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.
                                         266

-------
                                                   Federal Stationary Source Regulations
                                                      Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                 Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$27,158.0
$27,158.0
105.8
FY2010
Actuals
$26,195.8
$26,195.8
100.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$27,158.0
$27,158.0
105.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$34,096.0
$34,096.0
135.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$6,938.0
$6,938.0
29.9
Program Project Description:

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is responsible for setting, reviewing, and revising National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common pollutants and for setting emission
standards for sources of these "criteria" pollutants.  These national standards form the foundation
for air quality management and establish goals that protect public health and the environment.

The  CAA established two  types  of NAAQS:  primary standards set limits to protect public
health, including  the health of sensitive  populations such as asthmatics and the  elderly; and
secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare,  including protection against decreased
visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.  The six pollutants for which
EPA  has established NAAQS  include:  paniculate matter (PM), ozone, sulfur  dioxide (862),
nitrogen dioxide (NC^), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead.

This program also includes activities directed toward reducing air emissions of toxic pollutants
from  stationary sources.   Specifically, this program provides for 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, and associated national guidance and
outreach.  The program also includes issuing, reviewing, and periodically revising, as necessary,
New  Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for  criteria and certain listed pollutants,  setting
standards to limit emissions  of volatile  organic  compounds  (VOC) from  consumer and
commercial  products,  and establishing Reasonably Available  Control Technology (RACT)
through issuance and periodic review and revision of control technique guidelines  (CTG).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Activities described within Federal  Stationary Source Regulations support  the  Improving Air
Quality and Addressing Climate Change objectives in the Strategic Plan.
                                          267

-------
Addressing Climate Change

In 2012, EPA will develop NSPS for sources of greenhouse gases for utilities and refineries,
consistent with  the  requirements  of the  CAA.   Using emission inventory data,  EPA will
determine feasible  emission control within a reasonable timeframe  and  where  significant
emission reductions could be achieved cost-effectively. The regulatory development will include
developing  emission estimates,  evaluating  costs  of control,  and  to the  extent possible,
quantifying  economic, environmental,  and energy impacts.   The NSPS will address carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions in conjunction with the revision of NSPS for other
regulated pollutants.

Improving Air Quality

In 2012,  EPA will  continue  reviewing criteria  pollutant standards  in accordance  with  an
aggressive multi-year schedule. The Agency has recently accelerated the schedule for completing
NAAQS reviews in order to meet the five-year deadline in the CAA for reviewing the standards
for each pollutant. Conducting seven  concurrent reviews under this aggressive schedule requires
substantial investment in highly trained staff and the allocation of significant analytical resources
toward the NAAQS  review process.  Each review involves extensive  scientific peer review by
EPA scientific and technical experts, the design and conduct  of complex risk and exposure
analyses, a complete policy assessment, and consultation with external scientific experts at each
stage of the review process.

In addition to reviewing existing standards, work is currently underway to achieve and maintain
compliance with the ozone standard to be established in 2011, the ozone standards established in
1997, and 1979; the 1997 PMio and PM2.5 standards, the 2006 PM2.5 standard; the 2008 lead
standard; the 2010 NO2 standard; the  1971 CO standard; and the 2010 SO2 standard. In addition,
planning has begun for implementation requirements relating to revisions  to the NAAQS for CO
and PM,  and the secondary NAAQS for NO2 and SO2, which are all under review.

Between 2010 and 2012, EPA faces an agenda of 310 stationary source rules due for review and
promulgation,  50 of which are on a  court-ordered deadline or in litigation.  Currently, 131 of
these rules are in some stage of development within EPA. Additional litigation over pending or
already-missed deadlines is  expected.   Since  1990,  EPA  has published 96 MACT standards
covering 187 pollutants emitted  from 174 industrial categories.  However, a number  of these
rules have been found deficient by the courts, necessitating substantial revisions and  mandating
significant additional effort in the future by EPA for stationary source standards.

Air toxics  are  pollutants known to cause  or suspected  of causing  cancer, birth  defects,
reproductive effects or other serious  health problems. Based on the latest National Air Toxics
Assessment, EPA estimates that approximately 220 excess cancer cases per year may result from
the inhalation of air toxics  from outdoor sources,  and of this total  40 to  110 cases can be
attributable, directly or indirectly, to HAP emissions from stationary sources regulated by EPA.
To reduce or eliminate the unacceptable health risks and cumulative exposures to air toxics from
multiple  sources  in  affected communities  and  to fulfill  its  statutory  and  court-ordered
obligations,  EPA will continue to pursue opportunities to meet multiple  CAA requirements  for
                                          268

-------
stationary sources in more integrated ways in 2012. For example, where the CAA requires that
the Agency take multiple regulatory  actions that affect the same industry, EPA will consider
aligning the timing of these rulemaking actions to take  advantage of synergies between the
multiple rules, where feasible.   Coordinating  such actions allows us to  meet multiple  CAA
objectives for controlling both criteria  and hazardous air pollutants while considering cost
effectiveness and technical feasibility of controls.

Reductions in emissions  from prioritized sectors such as: petroleum refining; utilities; and oil
and gas will reduce emissions of air  toxics, help ozone nonattainment areas, and enhance our
climate change efforts. Additional controls at these  sources also will reduce  emissions near
affected communities, including low income and minority communities.  EPA also will address
programmatic elements, including court-vacated rules that apply across many industrial sources,
such as exemptions for start-up, shutdown and malfunction and the collection and application of
the best available data. EPA has  reviewed existing regulations to identify potential  emissions
monitoring deficiencies and the Agency has embarked upon a course to correct those, including
the application of new, advanced monitoring technologies.  Additional resources will enable the
Agency to propose new regulations  that would  allow  facilities  to report compliance data
electronically.
                                Current State of the Air
                                    Toxics Program
                            •   +300 rules need to be under
                               development by FY 2012

                            •   50 are under legal deadline

                            •   Almost 200 will  be past their
                               statutory deadline by FY 2012

                            •   +100 need to be re-issued or
                               amended to adhere to court
                               opinions
Significant resources are needed to fulfill legal and statutory deadline obligations to complete
certain MACT and waste incineration standards, to issue residual risk and technology review
standards  for MACT  categories, to review and revise NSPS,  and to issue control technique
guidelines for control of VOCs.

EPA  will  engage in rulemaking  efforts  regarding  Petroleum Refineries  NSPS;  Petroleum
Refineries MACT I and II; Uniform Standards and the GHG NSPS.  To address standards that
are part of the residual risk litigation settlement, EPA also will accomplish significant progress in
issuing  standards  for the following categories: Aerospace;  Secondary Aluminum;  Primary
                                          269

-------
Aluminum; Wool  Fiberglass;  Polymers and  Resins  IV;  Pesticides  Production;  Polyether
Production; Ferroalloys Production; Secondary Lead Smelting; Pulp and Paper; Mineral Wool;
Wood Furniture; Polyether Polyols; and, Primary Lead Smelting.

In addition to existing CAA and court-ordered mandates, EPA is required to periodically review
and revise both the list of air toxics subject to regulation and the list of source categories for
which standards  must be  developed.    Available  information  strongly  indicates that this
requirement will add significantly to EPA's already-substantial regulatory burden over time. For
example, if during the course of a regulatory review EPA acquires information demonstrating the
existence  of a number  of potentially significant unregulated emission points, the Agency would
potentially develop standards for additional source categories.

                         Regulatory Trends for Stationary Source
                                 Air Toxics 2000-2013:
            2000*2001*2002*2003*2004*2005*2006*2007*2008*2009*2010 2011 20122013

                                       Year


The figure above represents the number of stationary source rules that the Agency has issued
and rules that  are due  through 2013. In  the  chart above: NSPS refers  to  New Source
Performance Standards,  CTG/183(e) are national volatile organic compound (VOC) rules or
control technology guidelines. Area sources are sources that emit less than 10 tons annually of a
single hazardous air pollutant or less than  25 tons annually of a combination of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), andMACT/129 refers to standards for larger emitters of HAPs or solid waste
combustion units.
                                           270

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(001) Cumulative
percentage reduction in
tons of toxicity-
weighted (for cancer
risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2010
Target



36



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



36



FY 2012
Target



37



Units



Percent



Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(002) Cumulative
percentage reduction in
tons of toxicity-
weighted (for non-
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2010
Target



59



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



59



FY 2012
Target



59



Units



Percent



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$7,551.07 +15.0 FTE)  This reflects increased resources, including 15.0 FTE and
       associated payroll, to support development  of New  Source  Performance  Standards
       (NSPS) to address Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) as required by the Clean Air Act.  This
       includes associated payroll of $1,982.0.

   •   (+$837.07 +6.2 FTE) This reflects increased resources to develop rulemaking that would
       modify how facilities report compliance data, including 6.2 FTE with associated payroll
       of $818.0.

   •   (+$1,419.07 +10.5 FTE) This  reflects increased resources,  including 10.5 FTE with
       associated payroll of $1387.0 and travel of $32.0, to support development of regulations
       that are needed to meet court-ordered deadlines, including MACT  standards that have
       been found deficient by the courts.

   •   (-$2,293.0) This reflects a reduction to contract support and general program expenses.

   *   (+$127.07 -1.8 FTE)  This funding increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce
       costs for existing FTE, and a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.

   •   (-$195.0)  This reduction reflects  efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
                                          271

-------
       totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

   •   (-$508.0)  This  reflects a reduction as part  of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative  targets  certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
       including  advisory contracts, travel, general services,  printing  and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                           272

-------
                                            Federal Support for Air Quality Management
                                                      Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                  Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$99,619.0
$11,443.0
$111,062.0
714.7
FY2010
Actuals
$103,224.6
$12,480.6
$115,705.2
707.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$99,619.0
$11,443.0
$111,062.0
714.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$133,822.0
$7,650.0
$141,472.0
850.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$34,203.0
($3,793.0)
$30,410.0
135.9
Program Project Description:

This Federal Support for Air Quality Management 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), establish standards for
reducing air toxics, and sustain 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, including
consideration of environmental justice issues, 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 source controls in  State Implementation Plans
(SIPs), and assists  in identifying the most cost-effective control options available, including
consideration  of multi-pollutant reductions and innovative strategies.   This  Federal  Support
Program includes working with other federal agencies to ensure a coordinated approach, and
working with other countries  to address pollution sources outside U.S.  borders that pose risks to
public health and the environment within the U.S.  This program also supports the development
of risk assessment methodologies for the criteria air pollutants.

Toxic air pollutants are known to cause or suspected  of causing increased risk of  cancer and
other serious health effects.   This Federal Support Program assists state, tribal, and local air
pollution  control agencies in reducing air  toxic  emissions  through  modeling,  inventories,
monitoring, assessments, and strategies.  EPA also supports programs that reduce inhalation risk
and deposition to water bodies and ecosystems (e.g., the  Great Waters program), facilitate
international cooperation to  reduce transboundary and intercontinental air toxics pollution,
                                           273

-------
develop  and  update the  National Emissions Inventory  (NEI),  develop  risk  assessment
methodologies for toxic air pollutants,  and provide training for air pollution professionals.  In
addition, the program includes activities for the implementation of federal air toxics standards
and for the triennial National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Improving Air Quality

Particulate Matter (PM) is linked to tens of thousands of premature deaths per year and repeated
exposure to ozone can cause acute respiratory  problems and lead to permanent lung damage.
Elevated  levels of  lead  in  children  have  been associated with  IQ  loss,  poor  academic
achievement, and delinquent behavior,  while effects in adults include increased blood pressure
and  cardiovascular  disease,  and  decreased  kidney  function. Implementing  the  PM  and
reconsidered ozone NAAQS are among the Agency's highest priorities.  In FY 2012, EPA will
continue to support  these standards by  taking federal oversight  actions and  by developing
regulations and policies to ensure continued health protection during the transition between the
pre-existing and new standards.  EPA will provide technical  and policy assistance  to states
developing or revising attainment SIPs and will designate areas as attainment or nonattainment.

While EPA proceeds with the proposed transport rule to replace the  Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), the Agency will  continue  implementing Phase I of  the existing CAIR to ensure that
PM2.s and ozone reductions are maximized and to  support attainment of these standards.  EPA
will work with states to develop information needed to designate areas for the revised lead, 862
and NC>2 standards.  EPA also will  provide 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 Clean Air Act (CAA).

EPA continues to implement recommendations of the National Research Council, including: (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 the progress of air programs through
an accountability framework.  EPA will  continue to  implement,  as appropriate,  key reform
recommendations of the  Clean Air Act Advisory  Committee's Subcommittee on Air Quality
Management, including working with selected state and local agencies on alternative approaches
to air quality planning.

In FY 2012, 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, urban and regional-scale numerical grid air quality models,
and augmented cost/benefit tools to assess control  strategies (please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn
for further details).  EPA will maintain these tools  (e.g., integrated multiple pollutant emissions
inventory, air quality modeling platforms,  etc.) to provide the technical underpinnings for more
                                           274

-------
efficient and comprehensive air quality management and for integration with climate  change
activities.

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.   This includes changes, where the
Agency deems necessary, to effectively implement revised NAAQS monitoring requirements for
ozone,  lead, 862, NO2, and carbon monoxide (CO).  EPA will continue development of
emissions measurement methods for condensable PM2.5 for cross-industry application to ensure
that  accurate and  consistent measurement methods  can  be  employed  in  the  NAAQS
implementation program.  EPA also will continue to assist other federal agencies and state and
local governments in implementing the conformity regulations. The regulations require federal
agencies, taking actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas, to determine that the emissions
caused by their actions will conform to the SIP.

EPA will  continue  to  participate in global and  continental air quality management efforts
addressing transboundary  air pollution.   Additionally, EPA will continue participating in
negotiations under international treaties (i.e., the U.S.-Canada Agreement, Convention on Long-
range  Transboundary  Air Pollution,  and  Stockholm Convention  on  Persistent  Organic
Pollutants), and leading and participating in partnerships (e.g., the Global Mercury Programme)
to address fine particles, ozone, mercury, and persistent organic pollutants; assessing trends and
impacts  on U.S.  air quality  using  sophisticated models; and building the capacity to reduce
transboundary air pollution in key EPA Regional Offices and various nations (e.g., India, China,
Mexico, etc.).

EPA will continue to operate and maintain the Air Quality System (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  critical  programmatic needs and with EPA's  architecture  and  data  quality
requirements. The AQS Data Mart will continue to provide access  to the scientific community
and others to obtain air quality data via the  Internet.9  EPA also will continue to operate and
maintain AirNow, which provides real-time air quality data  and forecasts nationwide. Further,
EPA will operate and maintain the Emissions Inventory System (EIS), a system used to quality
assure  and  store current and historical  emissions inventory data,  and used to generate the
National Emissions Inventory (NET).  The NEI is used by EPA, states, and others to analyze the
public  health risks from air toxics and to  develop strategies to manage those risks and support
multipollutant analysis covering air toxics, NAAQS pollutants, and greenhouse gases (GHGs).
The EIS will be used for the first time to generate the 2008 NEI.10

EPA will continue to support permitting authorities 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 and to take
appropriate  action   to  more  broadly  improve  the   Title   V  program.   Please  see
9 Please see http://epa. gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/ for more details.
10 Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/neip/index.html for additional information.
                                           275

-------
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/pertnits/ for further details. EPA will perform monitoring support
associated with permit issuance and National Environmental Policy Act evaluation.

EPA will perform analyses aimed at developing New Source Review (NSR) regulations to more
effectively address sources of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, and EPA will continue to
work with state and tribal governments to implement revisions to the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements and NSR  rules, including updates to delegation agreements
(for delegated states) and review of implementation plan revisions (for SIP-approved states and
TIP-approved Tribes with approved Tribal Implementation Plans).  EPA also will continue to
review and respond to reconsideration requests and (working with DOJ) legal  challenges related
to NSR program revisions, take any actions  necessary to respond to court decisions, and work
with states and industries on NSR applicability issues. Emphasis will be given to assisting tribes
in implementing the NSR tribal rule and help them develop the capacity to assume delegation of
the rule or to effectively participate in reviews of permits issued by EPA in Indian Country.

To improve the NAAQS federal program,  EPA will  continue,  within current  statutory  and
resource limitations, to address deficiencies in designations and implementation.  For example,
EPA has been working to synchronize  the issuance of implementation guidance with the final
revised  NAAQS.  Our goal  is to provide this guidance early  in the process  to assist States in
implementing standards. The Agency will continue   consulting with  States to  determine
additional methods to  improve the implementation process  that are within current statutory
limitations. EPA will continue to develop measures of permit program efficiency.

EPA will continue to work with  state and local agencies 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 27 permanent monitoring sites, and the LSMs
are comprised of scores  of short-term  monitoring  projects, each designed to address specific
local issues. Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.html for additional  information.
EPA continues working  on  improving monitoring systems to fill data gaps and get a better
assessment  of actual  population exposure  to toxic air pollution.  Also,  EPA will continue
updating analytical efforts designed to provide  nationwide information on  ambient levels of
criteria and toxic air pollutants.

In addition to meeting CAA requirements, EPA will continue development of its multi-pollutant
and sector based efforts by constructing and organizing initiatives around industrial sectors.  The
focus of these efforts is to address an individual  sector's emissions comprehensively and to
prioritize regulatory efforts on the pollutants of greatest concern. EPA will continue to look at all
pollutants in an industrial sector and  identify ways to take advantage of the co-benefits of
pollution control.   In developing sector and  multi-pollutant approaches, EPA seeks innovative
solutions that address the differing nature of the various sectors.

One of EPA's top priorities is to eliminate unacceptable health  risks and cumulative exposures to
air toxics from multiple sources in affected communities, and  to enable the Agency to fulfill its
CAA and court-ordered  obligations.  The CAA requires that the technological bases for all
MACT  standards  be reviewed and updated as necessary every 8 years. In FY  2012, EPA  will
                                          276

-------
continue to conduct risk assessments to determine whether the MACT rules appropriately protect
public health.

Between 2010 and 2012, there are 310 stationary source (e,g.  air toxics) rules due for review and
promulgation, 50 of which are already on court-ordered deadlines or in litigation; 131 of these
rules are in some stage of development at the present time. To develop effective  standards that
will  survive  legal challenges, EPA needs accurate information about actual  emissions, their
composition,  specific emission points and transport into communities.

EPA will continue to enhance analytical capabilities to develop effective regulations including:
analyzing  the economic impacts of regulations and policies; developing and refining existing
emission test methods for measuring pollutants from smokestacks and other industrial sources;
developing and refining existing source sampling measurement techniques to determine rates of
emissions  from  stationary sources; and  conducting dispersion modeling that  characterizes the
atmospheric processes that disperse a pollutant emitted by a source.  EPA's current assessments
indicate that  while many air toxics are widespread, areas of concentrated emissions such as
communities  with concentrated  industrial and mobile source activity (near ports or distribution
areas) often have greater cumulative exposure. Working with litigants and informed by analysis
of air quality  health risk data, EPA is working to prioritize key air toxics regulations that can be
completed expeditiously and that will address significant risks to public health.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide information and  training to  states and communities
through documents, websites, and workshops on tools to help them in conducting assessments
and identifying risk reduction strategies for air toxics. This effort allows 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.

As part of the Agency's Air Toxics Initiative, EPA is requesting funding in FY 2012 to improve
the Agency's air toxic monitoring capabilities (on both source-specific and ambient bases), and
improve dissemination of information between and amongst the various EPA offices, the  state,
local and tribal  governments, and the public. To  make these improvements EPA proposes to:
expand analyses using tools such as the National Air Pollution Assessment (NAPA) and National
Air  Toxic  Assessment  (NATA)  to   include  demographics  and  cumulative,   aggregate
environmental risks to  different communities  and population subgroups (e.g.,  children, the
elderly); enhance quantitative benefits assessment tools such  as BenMAP to  include analytic
capabilities for air toxics; improve emission inventory estimates for toxic air pollutants using the
data  collected through source and ambient monitoring; and manage information (e.g. regulatory
requirements, compliance status, pollutant release information, permitting status)  for regulated
entities  electronically in  a  single location by modernizing the Air Facility System (AFS)
database.  This  system would accommodate data from and  coordinate  with other agency data
systems (such as NATA, NEI, TRI, RSEI) and provide streamlined access to federal and state
regulators.  In addition,  EPA is  requesting resources in FY 2012 to develop tools for  electronic
compliance reporting  as part of the Regaining Ground Initiative.  EPA  anticipates  that  these
investments will increase the Agency's ability to meet aggressive court ordered schedules to
complete  rulemaking  activities, especially in  the  Risk Technology Review program.  This
                                           277

-------
investment will  also assist the Agency in its work in FY 2012 to complete  or develop  an
additional 150 rules that are under legal or statutory deadlines for FY 2013.

Addressing Climate Change

During FY 2012, EPA will issue additional policy and guidance on GHG-related issues for the
Title V operating permits and PSD programs. Furthermore, EPA will continue to issue permits
directly  to sources in  areas where  states, local  agencies, or tribes do not issue permits.  In
addition, EPA will oversee the activities of state and local permitting programs as they continue
to transition to GHG coverage.

Adding  GHGs to the permitting programs has increased the number of covered  sources;  EPA
estimates that 550 new sources will be subject to Title V operating permits and 900 more actions
will fall under PSD.11 In FY 2012, EPA regional offices will continue to issue increased numbers
of PSD and  Title V permits  because of the new requirements for GHG emissions  control.
Additionally, the regional offices will issue GHG PSD permits in states where EPA has issued
Federal  Implementation Plans (FIPs). They also  will review increased numbers  of state, local,
and tribal  issued permits and  review changes to state, local, and  Tribal PSD and  Title V
programs  that incorporate GHG provisions.  EPA also will  address complex national policy
questions that are likely to arise as these new requirements are implemented.

EPA will consider the results of a range of international assessments issued in 2011 and address
the climate impacts of short-lived climate forcers. These traditional air pollutants, for example,
black carbon (a constituent of particulate matter) and  ozone are  impacting the climate and
reducing their emissions can reap immediate climate and public health benefits.  In the context of
the revised ozone and PM NAAQS,  and contingent on the outcome of the 2011 Black Carbon
Report to  Congress and other assessments, EPA will identify the most significant domestic and
international sources  of black carbon and ozone  precursor emissions. Based on these findings
and enhanced analytical  capabilities, EPA will  consider the best steps  for  addressing these
emissions.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(M94) Percent of major
NSR permits issued
within one year of
receiving a complete
permit application.
FY 2010
Target
78
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
78
FY 2012
Target
78
Units
Percent
  http://www.epa. gov/NSR/documents/20100413piecharts.pdf
                                          278

-------
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(M95) Percent of
significant Title V
operating permit
revisions issued within
18 months of receiving
a complete permit
application.
FY 2010
Target



100



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



100



FY 2012
Target



100



Units



Percent




Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(M96) Percent of new
Title V operating
permits issued within
18 months of receiving
a complete permit
application.

FY 2010
Target


99



FY 2010
Actual

Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target


99



FY 2012
Target


99



Units


Percent


Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(M9) Cumulative
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2010
Target



11



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



12



FY 2012
Target



12



Units



Percent



Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(M91) Cumulative
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of fine particulate
matter (PM-2.5) in all
monitored counties
from 2003 baseline.
FY 2010
Target



6



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011



FY2011
CR
Target



15



FY 2012
Target



15



Units



Percent



279

-------
Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(MM9) Cumulative
percent 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 2010
Target




26




FY 2010
Actual



Data
Avail
12/2011



FY2011
CR
Target




29




FY 2012
Target




32




Units




Percent




Measure
Type



Efficiency



Measure
(MM8) Cumulative
percent reduction in the
number of days to
process State
Implementation Plan
revisions, weighted by
complexity.
FY 2010
Target



2.9



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
2011


FY2011
CR
Target



2.9



FY 2012
Target



3.1



Units



Percent



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$2,269.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$24,446.0 / +140.4 FTE) This represents the incoming transfer of resources, including
       140.4 FTE with associated payroll of $18,620.0 and travel of $345.0, from the Federal
       Support for Air Toxics Program.  The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program has been
       consolidated with this program in  support of a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to
       air quality management.

    •   (+$4,864.0 / + 25.0 FTE)  This represents an increase  for Clean Air Act  Permitting
       activities, including 25.0 FTE with associated payroll of $3,241.0 and travel of $69.0.
       These resources and FTE will support expanded PSD and Title  V permit review by the
       Regional  Offices and sector- and source-specific guidance from headquarters, including
       guidance  on significant national policy issues.

    •   (-$485.0) This decrease in travel  costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (+$343.0  / + 1.0 FTE) This represents an increase as part of EPA's Regaining Ground
       Initiative, including 1.0 FTE with  associated payroll of $143.0.  These resources will be
       utilized to develop tools for electronic compliance reporting.
                                          280

-------
   •   (+$3,146.0  /  + 8.8 FTE) This represents  an increase  as  part of EPA's Air  Toxics
       Initiative, including 8.8 FTE with associated payroll of $1,227.0. Funding will be used
       for improving EPA's  air toxic facility fence line and remote monitoring capabilities,
       national assessments and improving dissemination of information between and amongst
       the various EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the public. Specific
       improvements include: expanding analyses using tools such as the National Air Pollution
       Assessment   (NAPA)   and  National Air   Toxic  Assessment  (NATA);   enhancing
       quantitative benefits assessment tools, such as BenMAP, to  include analytic capabilities
       for air toxics;  improving emission inventory estimates for air toxic pollutants using the
       data collected through  source and ambient monitoring;  and managing all information for
       all regulated entities electronically  in a single location by modernizing the Air Facility
       System (AFS) database.

   •   (+$2,931.0 / + 6.5 FTE) As part of the Healthy Communities Initiative, this  reflects an
       increase to  support the  Agency's efforts to  improve  existing  ambient monitoring
       networks to improve community wide characterizations of the impacts of air  toxics and
       related pollutants and to expand analytical tools to include demographics and cumulative,
       environmental risks to different communities and population subgroups, including 6.5
       FTE and associated payroll of $904.0. These resources and FTE will support expanded
       analyses and  information access by enhancing tools such as the National Air Pollution
       Assessment  (NAPA),  National Air  Toxic Assessment  (NATA),  BenMAP, and Air
       Facility System (AFS).

   •   (-$557.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This  initiative targets  certain  categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (+$299.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local
       Area Network (LAN) and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

   •   (-$3,053.07  -9.2 FTE)   This reflects a reduction to regional resources.  This  reduction,
       includes $1,169.0 in payroll associated with the reduced FTE as well as a reduction of
       $36.0  in travel.  The reduction will mean reduced support to states as  they implement
       new and revised NAAQS and toxics standards.  This also will reduce support to states as
       they develop revised and updated clean air plans.

   •   (-8.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C.  7401-7661f).
                                          281

-------
                                                Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
                                                     Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                        Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$24,446.0
$2,398.0
$26,844.0
145.8
FY2010
Actuals
$23,468.8
$2,381.7
$25,850.5
138.8
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$24,446.0
$2,398.0
$26,844.0
145.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($24,446.0)
($2,398.0)
($26,844.0)
-145.8
Program Project Description:

The Federal Support for Air Toxics Program assists state, tribal, and local air pollution control
agencies and communities with modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, strategies, and
program development of community-based toxics programs, including the assessment of air
toxics outside schools. EPA also provides support for programs that reduce inhalation risk or
deposition to water bodies  and ecosystems, international  cooperation to reduce transboundary
and intercontinental air toxic pollution, National Emissions Inventory development and updates,
risk  assessment methodologies for toxic air  pollutants, Persistent  Bioaccumulative Toxics
activities, and training of air pollution professionals. In addition, the program includes activities
for implementation of  federal air toxics standards  and the  triennial National  Air Toxics
Assessments.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

All activities  in  this program will  be  assumed by the Federal  Support for  Air Quality
Management Program to support the conversion to a sector-based multi-pollutant approach to air
quality management.

Performance Targets:

There are  no FY 2012 performance targets associated with this program project because the
funds are transferred to the Federal Support for Air Quality Management Program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$24,446.0  \  -140.4  FTE)  This represents  a  transfer  of  funding and  program
       responsibilities, including 140.4 FTE with associated payroll of $18,620.0, to the Federal
       Support for Air  Quality Management  Program  in  support of a sector-based  multi-
       pollutant approach to air quality management.
                                          282

-------
Statutory Authority:




CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
                                          283

-------
                                                  Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
                                                        Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                            Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                       Objective(s): Restore the Ozone Layer

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$5,934.0
$5,934.0
23.8
FY2010
Actuals
$6,159. 4
$6,159.4
28.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$5,934.0
$5,934.0
23.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$5,612.0
$5,612.0
23.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($322.0)
($322.0)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth by shielding the Earth's surface from harmful
ultraviolet (UV) radiation.  Scientific evidence amassed over the past 30 years has shown that
ozone-depleting substances (ODS) used around the world destroy the stratospheric ozone layer
and contribute to climate change.12  Overexposure to increased levels of UV radiation due to
ozone layer depletion is expected to raise the incidence of skin cancer and other illnesses.13 Skin
cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in the U.S. One American dies almost every hour
from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.14  Increased UV levels have been associated
with other human and non-human effects, including immune suppression and effects  on aquatic
ecosystems and agricultural crops.

EPA estimates that in the U.S.  alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will avert millions of non-
fatal and fatal skin  cancers, as well as millions of cataracts, between 1990 and 2165.15  Cataracts
are the leading cause of blindness worldwide, and in the U.S. a significant source of cost to the
Medicare budget. EPA's estimates regarding the U.S. health benefits from the ODS phaseout are
based on the assumption that international ODS  phaseout targets will be achieved, allowing the
ozone layer to recover later this century.  According to current atmospheric research, the ozone
layer is not expected to recover until mid-century at the earliest, due to the long  lifetimes of ODS
in the stratosphere.16

EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program implements 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), continuing the control and reduction of ODS in the U.S. and lowering
health risks to the  American public. Since ODS and many of their substitutes are also potent
12 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006.  Geneva, Switzerland. 2007.
13 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.
14 American Cancer Society. "Skin Cancer Facts." Accessed August 9, 2010. Available on the Internet at
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/SunandUvExposure/skin-cancer-facts.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPAReportto
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
16 WMO, 2007.
                                            284

-------
greenhouse gases, appropriate control and reduction of these substances also provide significant
benefits for climate protection. The Act provides for a phaseout of production and consumption
of ODS and  requires controls  on their use,  including banning certain emissive uses,  requiring
labeling to inform consumer choices, and requiring sound servicing practices for the use of ODS
in various products (e.g., air conditioning and refrigeration). The Act also prohibits venting ODS
or their substitutes, including other F-gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

As  a signatory to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. is committed to  ensuring that our  domestic
program is at least as stringent as international obligations, and to regulating and enforcing its
terms domestically. With 196 Parties and virtually universal participation, the Montreal Protocol
is the most successful international  environmental treaty in existence.17 With U.S. leadership,
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed  in  2007 to a more aggressive phaseout for ozone-
depleting  hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).   This  adjustment  to  the Montreal  Protocol
requires  dramatic  HCFC  reductions  during  the period 2010-2040,  equaling  a 47 percent
reduction in overall emissions compared to previous commitments under the Protocol.

The Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program also works with  the supermarket industry through
                                                 1 &
the GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership.   An EPA partnership  with the supermarket
industry  and other stakeholders,  GreenChill promotes advanced technologies,  strategies,  and
practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ODS and greenhouse gases.   The
program now includes  more than 5,500 stores in 48  states.   In 2008, partners reduced their
aggregate total emissions by 8.5 percent.

EPA's Responsible Appliance Disposal  (RAD) Program19 is a partnership that protects the ozone
layer and  reduces emissions  of greenhouse  gases  through  the  recovery of ODS  from old
refrigerators,  freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers.  RAD partners dispose  of more than 1
million refrigerant-containing appliances  annually, reducing ODS emissions by over 550 ODP-
weighted tons.

While the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program continues to heal the ozone layer and garner
climate co-benefits, EPA also works to  improve public health by sharing information to help the
public make  informed  decisions  about health  and the environment. Because people  will  live
under a compromised ozone layer  until the middle of this  century, the  SunWise Program20
educates children about the importance of UV protection.  SunWise  has grown from 25 schools
to over 26,000 since 1999.  It is now relied on by public and private schools in every U.S. state,
and in several states, SunWise partner  schools amount to a quarter of the number of schools in
the state. According to a  study published in  Pediatrics,2   every  federal dollar invested in
SunWise results in a $2-$4 savings in health care.
17 See: http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP Key Achievements-E.pdf,
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
http://ozone.unep.org/highlights.shtml (Nov 2,2009 entry)
18 For more information, see: www.epa.go v/greenchill
19 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad
20 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/sunwise
21 Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):el074-84. Economic evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise Program:
Sun Protection Education for Young Children. Kyle JW, Hammitt JK, Lim HW, Geller AC, Hall-Jordan LH, Maibach EW, De
Fabo EC, Wagner MC.


                                            285

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In carrying out the requirements of the Act and the Montreal Protocol in FY 2012, EPA will
continue to implement the domestic rulemaking agenda for control and reduction of ODS. EPA
will provide compliance assistance and enforce rules controlling ODS production, import,  and
emission.

In FY 2012, EPA will focus its work to ensure that ODS production and import caps under the
Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act continue to be met. The Clean Air Act requires reductions
and a  schedule for  phasing out the  production  and  import of  ODS.   These requirements
correspond to  the domestic consumption  cap  for class II HCFCs,  as set by the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol.  As of January 1, 2010, ODS production and imports were capped at 3,810
ODP-weighted metric tons,  which is 25% of the U.S. baseline under the Montreal  Protocol.
Each ODS is weighted based on its ODP, a measure of the damage it does to the stratospheric
ozone layer. Beginning on January 1,  1996, the cap for HCFC consumption was set at the sum
of 2.8  percent of the domestic ODP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989,  plus the OOP-
weighted level of HCFCs in 1989.22  In 2015, U.S.  production and import will be reduced
further, to 10% of the U.S. baseline, and in 2020, all production and import will be phased out
except for exempted amounts.

Given that the  ODS cap was lowered in 2010, EPA is responding to an increased number of ODS
substitute applications, many of which represent lower-GHG options.  Under  the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program,23  EPA reviews alternatives to ODS to assist the
market's transition to alternatives that are  safer, especially for the climate system.  The purpose
of the program is to allow a safe, smooth transition away from ODS by identifying substitutes
that offer lower overall risks to human health and the environment.  As necessary, EPA restricts
use of  alternatives  for given applications that are more  harmful to  human health  and the
environment on an overall basis. In FY 2012, EPA will consider the suite of available substitutes
for each  of approximately  50  end  uses (e.g.,  domestic  refrigeration,  motor vehicle air
conditioning) in eight industrial sectors and with the listing of new alternatives, review previous
decisions as necessary.  Also, EPA will continue to work with federal and international agencies
to halt  the illegal import of ODS  and foster the smooth transition to  non-ozone-depleting
alternatives in various sectors.
Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(SOI) Remaining US
Consumption of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs), chemicals that
deplete the Earth's
protective ozone layer,

FY 2010
Target


<3,811



FY 2010
Actual

Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target


<3,811



FY 2012
Target


<3,811



Units


ODP tons


22 Consumption equals production plus import minus export.
23 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
                                          286

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
measured in tons of
Ozone Depleting
Potential (OOP).
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$49.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$197.0) In a time of fiscal constraint, EPA plans to reduce funding for the Sun Wise
       program website. As a result, schools will have to rely on a Sunwise website that is not
       updated as often. This website offers internet-based materials for use, additional related
       printed curriculum and  information on sun safety.

    •   (-$8.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to  reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting  green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$72.0)   This reflects a  reduction as part  of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative  targets  certain categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel,  general  services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and  streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-0.1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (+$4.0) This increase in funding will support the review of ODS alternatives.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990, Title I, Parts A and D  (42 U.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.
                                           287

-------
                                                      Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
                                                          Program Area: Clean Air and Climate
                             Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                          Objective(s): Restore the Ozone Layer

                                     (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$9,840.0
$9,840.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$9,840.0
$9,840.0
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$9,840.0
$9,840.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$9,495.0
$9,495.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($345.0)
($345.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The ozone layer in the stratosphere protects life on Earth by preventing harmful ultraviolet (UV)
radiation from reaching the Earth's surface.  Scientific evidence amassed over more than 30 years
has  shown  that ozone-depleting substances  (ODS)  used  around  the  world  destroy  the
stratospheric ozone layer and contribute to  climate change.24 Increased levels of UV radiation,
due  to ozone depletion, have contributed to increased incidence of skin  cancer, cataracts,  and
other health effects.25  Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for nearly half
of all cancers.26  Increased  UV levels also have  been associated with other human and  non-
human effects, including immune suppression and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural
crops.27

EPA estimates that in the U.S. alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will avert millions of non-
                          r\Q                                                        r\f\
fatal and fatal skin cancers   as well as millions of cataracts between 1990 and 2165.   According
to current research,  the ozone layer is expected to recover later this century.  This long recovery
period is due  to the long atmospheric lifetime of ODS.30  These estimates are based  on the
assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will be achieved through full participation by
all  countries  (both  industrialized and developing), allowing the  ozone layer to recover.  If
developing countries go back to using ODS, at even 70 percent of historic rates, within 20 years
the environmental gains to date would be negated,  as would billions of dollars spent. Ending the
24 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland. 2007.
25 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.
26 American Cancer Society. "Skin Cancer Facts." Accessed August 9, 2010. Available on the Internet at
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/SunandUvExposure/skin-cancer-facts.
27 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UNEP, Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 2006 Assessment.
Nairobi, Kenya, 2007.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPAReportto
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999. Also:
29 Protecting the Ozone Layer Protects Eyesight - A Report on Cataract Incidence in the United States Using the Atmospheric
and Health Effects Framework Model. Accessed August 9, 2010. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects/AHEFCataractReport.pdf
30 WMO, 2007.
                                              288

-------
production and use of ODS not only saves the ozone layer, but it also reduces the climate impact
of these potent greenhouse gases.

Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol),
the U.S. and other developed countries contribute to the Multilateral Fund to support projects and
activities in  developing  countries  to eliminate the production  and use of ODS. The Montreal
Protocol is the first multilateral treaty to have universal participation with ratification by all 196
countries.  The U.S. contribution to the Multilateral Fund, which is split between EPA and the
Department  of State, is 22 percent of the total based  on  the U.N.  scale of assessment.  The
Multilateral Fund draws heavily on U.S. expertise and technologies, and the permanent seat of
the  U.S.  on the  Executive  Committee  ensures  cost-effective  assistance.  Negotiated  text
supporting the 2007 adjustment to the Protocol commits donor countries, including the U.S., to
"stable and sufficient" funding to the Multilateral Fund. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol
agreed,  in  the 2007   adjustment, to  a  more  aggressive  phaseout  for  ozone-depleting
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which involves dramatic HCFC  reductions during the
period from 2010-2040, equaling a 47  percent  reduction in overall  emissions.  Most of these
reductions will  occur in developing countries. Because most ODS  are strong greenhouse gases
(GHGs), this faster phaseout also will  result in large reductions in greenhouse gas  (GHG)
emissions.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's contributions to the Multilateral  Fund in FY 2012 will help continue  support for cost-
effective projects designed to build capacity and  eliminate ODS production and consumption in
over 60 developing countries. Today, the Multilateral Fund supports over 6,000 activities in 148
countries that, when fully implemented, will prevent annual emissions of more than 451,000
metric tons  of  ODS.  Additional  projects will  be  submitted,  considered  and  approved in
accordance with Multilateral Fund guidelines.

Performance Targets:

Performance measures  associated with this program  are included  in the section  Stratospheric
Ozone:  Domestic Program under Environmental Programs and Management Tab and  can be
found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

The Clean Air Act requires reductions and a schedule for phasing out the production and import
of ODS. These requirements correspond to the domestic  consumption cap for class II HCFCs, as
set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each ODS is weighted based on the damage it does to
the  stratospheric ozone  layer—this is the  ozone depletion potential  (OOP).  Since January 1,
2010, the  U.S. is  required  to  meet a  consumption  cap of 3,810  OOP-weighted metric tons.
Further incremental reductions are required through 2020 until all  ODS production and import
are phased out, except for exempted amounts.
                                          289

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$370.0)   This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$25.0 ) This increase will  support the Multilateral Fund.

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.
                                           290

-------
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                 291

-------
                                                            Indoor Air:  Radon Program
                                                   Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$5,866.0
$453.0
$6,319.0
39.4
FY2010
Actuals
$5,408.1
$485.6
$5,893.7
33.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$5,866.0
$453.0
$6,319.0
39.4
FY2012
Pres Budget
$3,901.0
$210.0
$4,111.0
23.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($1,965.0)
($243.0)
($2,208.0)
-16.3
Program Project Description:

Title III of the Toxic Substances Control  Act (TSCA) directs EPA to undertake a variety of
activities to address the public health risks posed by exposures to indoor radon. The law directs
EPA to study the health effects of radon, assess exposure levels, set an action level and advise
the public of  steps they can take to reduce  exposure, evaluate mitigation methods, institute
training centers to ensure  a supply of competent radon service  providers, establish  radon
contractor proficiency  programs, and  assist  states with program development through the
administration of a grants program.

Radon is the leading cause  of lung cancer  mortality among non-smokers, accounting for about
21,000 deaths per year. EPA's non-regulatory indoor radon program promotes actions to reduce
the public's health risk from indoor radon.   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 has succeeded in promoting partnerships between national organizations, the
private sector, and state, local, and tribal governmental programs to achieve radon risk reduction.
On the basis of that success, EPA plans to streamline the program to rely more heavily on these
partners to achieve radon risk reduction.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will:

    •   Continue to partner with national and private sector organizations, as well as state, local,
       and tribal government organizations to reduce radon exposure;

    •   Work with states, tribes, and localities to improve their radon programs to increase risk
       reduction;
                                          292

-------
    •   Continue partnerships that will make radon risk reduction a normal part of doing business
       in the marketplace; and

    •   Improve scientific knowledge and technologies to support and drive aggressive action on
       radon in conjunction with partners.

The number of homes in the U.S. with radon levels above the action level is currently estimated
at 1 in 15 homes, and continued action is needed. In FY 2012, EPA will accelerate efforts to
reduce radon exposure.  The program will continue to focus on radon risk reduction in homes
and schools.   EPA will  use  information  dissemination,  social  marketing  techniques,  and
partnerships with influential public health and environmental organizations to drive action at the
national level.  EPA will continue  to promote public action to test homes for indoor radon, fix
homes when levels  are high,  and build homes with  radon-resistant features. EPA also will
continue its work with national partners to inform and motivate public action.  As part of this
outreach,  EPA communicates  risk estimates from  the National  Academy  of Sciences that
demonstrate the substantial risks associated with radon exposure.

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
improving 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, which is described elsewhere in this volume.  With its
programmatic resources, EPA engages in 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.31 In FY  2012,  EPA plans to  streamline the  program, curtailing
activity in lower priority outreach, education, guidance and technical assistance.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(R50) Percent of
existing homes with an
operating mitigation
system (ROMS)
compared to the
FY 2010
Target
12
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
12.5
FY 2012
Target
13.3
Units
Percent
31 http://www.epa.gov/radon
                                           293

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
estimated number of
homes at or above
EPA's 4pCi/L action
level.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units

Measure
Type



Output


Measure
(R51) Percent of all
new single-family
homes (SFH) in high
radon potential areas
built with radon
reducing features.
FY 2010
Target



33


FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011

FY2011
CR
Target



34.5


FY 2012
Target



36


Units



Percent


FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$1,921.07-14.8  FTE)  To accommodate the lower funding  level,  EPA will reduce
       resources for lower priority regional efforts to address public  health risks  posed by
       exposures by  indoor radon. These efforts include  regional  support  for  outreach,
       education, guidance, and technical assistance. This reduction includes associated payroll
       of $1,906.0.  With the remaining available resources, EPA will continue to partner with
       national and private sector organizations, as well as state, local,  and tribal government
       organizations to reduce radon exposure; 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 improve
       scientific knowledge and technologies to  support and drive aggressive action on radon in
       conjunction with partners.

    •   (-$44.0)  This  decrease in travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990; 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
IRAA, Section 306.
                                          294

-------
                                                           Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
                                                    Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                          Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$20,759.0
$762.0
$21,521.0
63.8
FY 2010
Actuals
$19,253.0
$808.0
$20,061.0
63.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$20,759.0
$762.0
$21,521.0
63.8
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$17,198.0
$370.0
$17,568.0
54.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($3,561.0)
($392.0)
($3,953.0)
-9.5
Program Project Description:

Title IV of the  Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) gives the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad authority to conduct and coordinate research on
indoor air quality, develop and disseminate information on the subject, and coordinate efforts at
the federal, state, and local levels.

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. For many reasons, including
peoples' decisions to smoke in their own homes, air inside  homes, schools, and workplaces can
be more polluted than outdoor  air in the largest and most industrialized cities.32 People typically
spend close  to 90 percent of their time indoors and may be more at risk from indoor than outdoor
air pollution.33

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 states, local governments, and public health
organizations.

FY 2012 Activities  and Performance Plan:

In FY  2012, EPA's Indoor Air Program will continue to support the Administrator's priorities.
EPA will continue to  promote comprehensive asthma care that integrates management of
environmental asthma triggers  and  health care  services.  EPA will  continue to promote
community  adoption  of comprehensive asthma care programs through  the Communities in
32 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.
33 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.
                                           295

-------
Action for Asthma-Friendly Environments Campaign, EPA will place a particular emphasis on
protecting vulnerable populations, including children, low-income,  and minority populations
disproportionately  impacted  by  poor  asthma  outcomes.  The  protection  of  vulnerable
subpopulations is a top Administrator's priority, especially  with  regard to children. EPA will
continue to work in partnership  and collaboration with other federal  agencies,  the health care
community,  and state  and local organizations  to promote smoke-free  homes  and  cars,
emphasizing protection for young children through collaboration with the Department of Health
and Human Services' Office of Head Start.

EPA also will continue to promote a suite of "best practice" guidance for a range of building
types,  including  guidance for  the  control  and management   of  moisture  and  mold and
comprehensive  best  practice guidance  for IAQ  during each phase of the building cycle.
Additional guidance will focus on best maintenance practices for indoor environmental quality
and ensuring good IAQ in concert with increased energy efficiency in buildings.

Internationally, EPA will continue the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air 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 and heating  fires.
Since 2003, the Indoor Air Program has documented nearly three  million households across the
globe,  nearly 20 million people, who  have adopted clean  and efficient cooking and heating
technologies through the Partnership's programs.

In a time of fiscal constraint, the reduced FY 2012 resources will require EPA to decrease overall
partnership/outreach  support with non-governmental   organizations,  federal partners,  and
professional  organizations. Additionally, to accommodate the  lower funding level in FY  2012
EPA plans to reduce or eliminate lower priority activities, including  the Tools for  Schools
Program and the Healthy Homes/Buildings Program.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(R17) Additional
health care
professionals trained
annually on the
environmental
management of asthma
triggers.
FY 2010
Target
2,000
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
2,000
FY 2012
Target
3,000
Units
Professionals

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(R16) Percent of public
that is aware of the
asthma program's
media campaign.

FY 2010
Target

>30


FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

FY2011
CR
Target

>30


FY 2012
Target

>30


Units

Percent

                                          296

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(R22) Estimated
annual number of
schools establishing
indoor air quality
programs based on
EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2010
Target



1,000



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



1,000



FY 2012
Target



1,000



Units



Schools



EPA will strive to meet its long-term strategic goal for 2015 that 7.6 million people with asthma
will be taking the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental triggers.  EPA's
goal is to motivate an additional 400,000 people with asthma to take these actions in 2012,
bringing the total number to approximately 6.5  million people with asthma who are taking the
essential actions to reduce their exposure to  environmental triggers.  As another component of
reducing exposure to environmental triggers for children with asthma, EPA will work to reduce
existing disparities between disproportionately impacted populations and the overall population.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (-$3,456.07 -8.0 FTE) In  a time of fiscal constraint,  the reduced  FY  2012 resources will
   require EPA to decrease  overall partnership/outreach  support  with  non-governmental
   organizations, federal partners, and professional organizations. Additionally, to accommodate
   the lower funding level in FY 2012 EPA plans to reduce or eliminate lower priority activities,
   including the Tools for Schools Program and the Healthy Homes/Buildings Program. Of the
   total decrease, $1,092.0 is for associated payroll. EPA will focus its healthy homes/buildings
   program on reducing exposures and health risks from environmental asthma triggers.

•  (-$105.0)  This reflects  a reduction as part of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
   initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
   advisory contracts, travel,  general services, printing and  supplies.  EPA will continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
                                          297

-------
                                                                  Radiation: Protection
                                                   Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                    Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2010
Actuals
$11,433.3
$1,962.1
$2,586.2
$15,981.6
84.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2012
Pres Budget
$9,629.0
$2,096.0
$2,487.0
$14,212.0
76.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($1,666.0)
$1.0
($8.0)
($1,673.0)
-12.5
Program Project Description:

Congress designated EPA as the primary federal agency charged with protecting human health
and the environment from harmful and avoidable exposure to radiation. EPA has important
general  and specific duties depending on the enabling  legislation (e.g., Atomic Energy  Act,
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Clean Air Act, etc). EPA's Radiation Protection Program carries out
this responsibility through its federal guidance and regulations/standards development activities.
EPA provides oversight  of operations at the Waste  Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).   EPA also
regulates radioactive air  emissions  and ensures that the Agency  has  appropriate methods to
manage radioactive releases and exposures under Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act, which governs
EPA's authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants.

Other EPA responsibilities include radiation clean-up and waste management guidance, radiation
pollution prevention, and guidance  on radiation protection standards and practices  to federal
agencies. The Agency's radiation science is recognized nationally and internationally; it is the
foundation that EPA, other federal agencies and states use to develop radiation risk management
policy,  guidance,  and  rulemakings.   The Agency  works closely with other  national and
international radiation protection organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Council  on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the International Commission  on  Radiation  Protection, and the Organization  of
Economic  and Cooperative Development's  Nuclear Energy  Agency to advance scientific
understanding of radiation risks.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2012, EPA will  continue  to  implement its regulatory oversight  responsibilities for
Department of Energy  (DOE)  activities at the WIPP facility, as mandated by Congress in the
WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992.  EPA also will continue its oversight work to ensure the
                                          298

-------
permanent and safe disposal, consistent with EPA standards,34 of all radioactive waste shipped to
WIPP. This includes conducting inspections of waste generator facilities and evaluating DOE's
compliance with applicable environmental laws  and regulations every five years. EPA will
continue limited work on the revision to the Uranium Milling and Tailings Radiation Control Act
regulation (40  CFR 192),  last reviewed in 1995, and the related Hazardous  Air Pollutants,
Subpart W (40 CFR 61) update.

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 limited radiation risk assessments and provide guidance and technical tools
when available.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type



Output





Output




Measure
(R37) Time to approve
site changes affecting
waste characterization
at DOE waste
generator sites to
ensure safe disposal of
transuranic radioactive
waste at WIPP.
(R36) Average time of
availability of quality
assured ambient
radiation air

monitoring data during
an emergency.

FY 2010
Target



70





0.7




FY 2010
Actual



Data
Avail
701 1
£*\J _L _L



Data
LfCaa
Avail
201 1


FY2011
CR
Target



70





0.7




FY 2012
Target



75





0.8




Units



Days





Days



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$1,655.0 / -  11.0 FTE) This reflects a significant reduction in both headquarters and
       regional staff to address the nation's risks of radiation exposure, necessary in this time of
       fiscal constraint. To accommodate the reduction, EPAplans to terminate important but
       lower priority work on updating EPA radiation science issued through Federal Guidance
       publications that  federal  and state  agencies  use when  conducting  radiation  risk
       assessments. Of this reduction, $1,605.0 is a reduction in payroll due to the reduced FTE.
       This reduction may also mean that EPA will take longer to promulgate regulations due to
       limited resources for analysis and outreach and stakeholder input.

       This cut also may  substantially reduce  the  program's  timeliness in  responding  to
       radioactive waste policy and technical issues. Other lower priority activities that may be
       affected are the  Agency's tribal and environmental justice  efforts on  radiation issues,
  Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp/background.html
                                           299

-------
       particularly those aimed at Navajo uranium contamination; risk assessment support to the
       states and regions; and EPA's radiation outreach and public information abilities.

   •   (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiencies Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

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; Uranium  Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978; WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
                                          300

-------
                                                     Radiation:  Response Preparedness
                                                   Program Area:  Indoor Air and Radiation
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                    Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$3,077.0
$4,176.0
$7,253.0
42.3
FY2010
Actuals
$2,827.9
$4,242.7
$7,070.6
41.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$3,077.0
$4,176.0
$7,253.0
42.3
FY2012
Pres Budget
$3,042.0
$4,082.0
$7,124.0
42.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($35.0)
($94.0)
($129.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA generates policy guidance and procedures for EPA radiological emergency response under
the National  Response Framework (NRF) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).  EPA maintains its own Radiological Emergency Response
Team (RERT), is a member of the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee
(FRPCC), and also supports the Federal Advisory Team for Environment, Food, and Health (the
"A-Team").  EPA responds  to  radiological  emergencies,  conducts  national  and  regional
radiological  response  planning and  training, and develops response plans for radiological
incidents or accidents.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response structure, will
continue to ensure that it maintains and improves the level of readiness to support federal
radiological emergency response and recovery operations under the NRF and NCP.  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.35
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 and
develop radiological emergency response protocols and standards. The Agency 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 will continue to develop and maintain Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for use by federal,
35
  Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/
                                          301

-------
state, and local responders. Additionally, EPA will provide training on the use of the PAGs to
users through workshops and radiological emergency response exercises.

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 development of their own preparedness programs.

EPA  will continue development and implementation  of field-based measurement  methods,
procedures and quality systems to support expedited assessment and characterization of outdoor
and indoor areas  impacted with radiological contamination.  Application of these field-based
methods and procedures will support rapid assessment and triage of impacted areas (including
buildings, indoor environments, infrastructure) and development of cleanup strategies.

EPA's Special Teams will design and establish an instrument quality program for field-based
radiological measurements.  EPA's Special Teams also will  develop procedures for ensuring
protection of  responders  by  minimizing  exposure  and keeping  dose as low as reasonably
achievable.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(R35) Level of
readiness of radiation
program personnel and
assets to support
federal radiological
emergency response
and recovery
operations.
FY 2010
Target



90



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011



FY2011
CR
Target



90



FY 2012
Target



90



Units



Percent



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$7.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$6.0)  This decrease  in travel costs reflects an  effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for  efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign processes  and  streamline activities  in both  administrative   and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                          302

-------
   •   (-$11.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as
       email optimization,  consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization,  and others
       totaling $10 million  agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

Statutory Authority:

Atomic Energy  Act (AEA) of  1954, as  amended,  42  U.S.C  2011 et seq.  (1970),  and
Reorganization Plan #3  of  1970; Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990;  Comprehensive
Environmental Response,  Compensation, and  Liability Act (CERCLA); National  Oil  and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300; 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;
Homeland Security Act of 2002;  Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(PKEMRA); Public Health  Service Act (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.; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA); and Title XIV of the Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA) of 1997, PL 104-201
(Nunn-Lugar II).
                                         303

-------
Program Area: Brownfields
           304

-------
                                                                            Brownfields
                                                               Program Area: Brownfields
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$24,152.0
$24,152.0
125.9
FY2010
Actuals
$24,465.3
$24,465.3
125.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$24,152.0
$24,152.0
125.9
FY2012
Pres Budget
$26,397.0
$26,397.0
144.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$2,245.0
$2,245.0
19.0
Program Project Description:

The  Brownfields program is  designed to help states,  tribes,  local communities,  and other
stakeholders involved in  environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment to work
together to plan, inventory, assess, safely cleanup, and reuse brownfields. Brownfield sites 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.  Revitalizing
these once productive properties helps communities by removing blight,  satisfying the growing
demand for land,  helping to limit  urban sprawl, fostering ecologic habitat  enhancements,
enabling economic development,  and maintaining or improving quality  of life.  This program
comprises  the  administrative component  of the Brownfields  program,  supporting  human
resources, travel, training, technical assistance, and research activities.

EPA's work  is  focused  on  removing  barriers and  creating  incentives  for  brownfields
redevelopment.  EPA's Brownfields program funds  research efforts, clarifies liability  issues,
enters into federal, state, tribal,  and local partnerships, conducts outreach activities, and  creates
related job training  and workforce development  programs.  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)  technical outreach  support to
address environmental justice issues and support  Brownfields research.

EPA's enforcement program  develops  guidance and  tools that clarify potential environmental
cleanup liabilities, thereby providing greater certainty and comfort for parties seeking to reuse
these properties.  The enforcement program also can provide direct support to parties  seeking to
reuse contaminated properties in order to facilitate transactions through consultations and  the use
of enforcement tools.

The  Brownfields Program also includes  smart growth  and sustainable design  that  address
Brownfield issues.  The smart  growth  activities  include:  (1) working with  state  and local
governments and other stakeholders to create an improved economic and institutional climate for
Brownfields redevelopment;  (2)  removing barriers  and creating incentives  for  Brownfields
redevelopment by changing standards that affect  the viability of Brownfields redevelopment; and
                                          305

-------
(3) creating cross-cutting solutions that  improve the economic, regulatory, and  institutional
climate for Brownfields redevelopment.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Brownfields program fosters federal, state, local, and public-private partnerships to return
properties  to   productive  economic  use  in  communities.    This  approach  emphasizes
environmental health and protection that also achieves economic development and job creation
through  the  redevelopment  of  Brownfields properties,  particularly  in  underserved  and
disadvantaged communities.

As part of the America's  Great Outdoor Initiative, EPA is participating on interagency teams in
the development of a broad range of policy options to better align and leverage federal programs
and investments, make regulatory and voluntary efforts more complementary, and increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of programs to connect Americans with the great outdoors.  EPA is
leading teams  focused on promoting outdoor recreation  on public  and private lands in urban
parks, greenways, beaches, trails, and waterways,  and  educating and engaging Americans in our
natural, cultural, and historical resources.

In addition to supporting  the operations and management of the Brownfields program, funds in
FY 2012 will provide financial assistance  for training  on hazardous waste to organizations
representing the interests of state and tribal co-implementers of the  Small Business Liability
Relief and  Brownfields  Revitalization  Act (SBLRBRA),  otherwise  known as the  2002
Brownfields Amendments.  The program also offers  outreach support for the Administrator's
Priority of Promoting Environmental Justice issues affecting 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 Brownfields grants  are in the form  of cooperative agreements,  and require considerable
Agency staff involvement to ensure that sites are properly assessed and cleaned up consistent
with the  applicable requirements (e.g., Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP)). Current Agency
guidelines recommend an average of no more than 11 cooperative agreements per project officer.
Despite  workload increases  in many  areas  of  the country  (including  areas  with many
disadvantaged communities and "cities in transition"), the average project officer works on as
many as  30 grants.  This greatly compromises the ability to effectively and efficiently manage
these grants for the benefit of the affected communities.

Since EPA's Brownfields program manages  a significant workload of assessment,  cleanup,
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), job training and area-wide planning cooperative agreements, the
FY 2012 request includes 19.2 additional FTE. These FTE would help provide needed support
in the planning, expeditious award, and performance  management of Brownfields cooperative
agreements.

The additional  FTE will also  be used for project  officers who  will  more  effectively and
efficiently negotiate and  award  cooperative  agreements as part of current workload as well as
manage  the agreements  throughout their full  life-cycle,  providing the  necessary technical
                                          306

-------
assistance the recipient communities need throughout the implementation of the project to ensure
successful outcomes.  As project  officers, these  FTE will also facilitate initial coordination
within EPA and with other Agencies in two ways:

       1) Facilitate initial coordination with EPA  enforcement, air and water quality programs
       (as appropriate) to target environmental improvements identified during the area-wide
       planning process.  Through  area-wide planning, local communities will be able to assess
       and address a single large or multiple Brownfield sites within their boundaries,  thereby
       advancing area-wide planning to enable redevelopment on a broader scale. For example,
       these improvements could come from  air quality or water infrastructure investments —
       planned or underway — within or  near the pilot project area, or from  a supplemental
       environmental  project identified by EPA's enforcement office (if information is publicly
       available).  The FTE also will  consult air and water media offices as needed to advise on
       development techniques that improve environmental outcomes, such as approaches which
       reduce air  emissions  (CC>2,   NOX, HC,  CO),  energy  use from  vehicular  energy
       consumption (e.g., reduce vehicle miles traveled), land consumption, stormwater run-off,
       and pollutant loadings.

       2) Work with  other federal, state and/or tribal  agencies (as appropriate) in an effort to
       provide additional information in  support of  developing the area-wide plan  for the
       brownfields-impacted  area, such as planned  neighborhood investments  or  services
       needed. By identifying  opportunities  for cross-program coordination and possible
       integration, EPA will be able  to deliver more comprehensive technical assistance to the
       pilot communities.

The National Brownfields Conference is the largest and most comprehensive conference in the
nation focused on environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment issues.  Due to
increased contributions and support from external partners, EPA is reducing its  funding for this
conference by a total of $905 thousand in FY 2012.

EPA 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 cleanup that encourage Brownfields redevelopment,  pilot additional techniques
to accomplish redevelopment within communities, identify new policy and research needs, and
highlight best practices that can be copied in other communities.

In FY 2012,  EPA's Brownfields program  request includes nearly  $1.3 million for the smart
growth  program.   The  smart  growth program  addresses  critical issues for Brownfields
redevelopment, including land assembly, development permitting issues, financing, parking and
street standards,  accountability  to  uniform systems of information for  land use controls, and
other factors  that influence the  economic viability  of Brownfields  redevelopment.  The  best
practices, tools, and lessons learned  from  the smart growth program will  directly inform and
assist EPA's efforts to increase area-wide planning for assessment, cleanup,  and redevelopment
of Brownfields sites.
                                          307

-------
In FY 2012,  EPA is  requesting  $497 thousand  for EPA's  enforcement program.   EPA's
enforcement program will work collaboratively with our partners on innovative approaches to
help achieve the Agency's land reuse priorities.  EPA's enforcement program will  develop
guidance and tools to provide greater certainty and comfort regarding potential liability concerns
for parties seeking to reuse these properties.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports performance results in  the STAG:  Brownfields Program
Projects and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$798.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (+$2,706.07 +19.2 FTE) This reflects an increase in Regional project offices to provided
       additional support in the planning, expeditious award, and performance management of
       Brownfields cooperative agreements,  including the  proposed  expansion  of  area wide
       planning grants.  The additional resources include 19.2 FTE and associated  payroll of
       $2,630.0.

    •   (-$905.07  -1.0 FTE) This  reflects  a  decrease  in resources supporting  the National
       Brownfields conference due to enhanced administrative efficiencies.   The  reduced
       resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $137.0.

    •   (-$273.0)  This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets  certain  categories of spending for efficiencies  and  reductions,
       including  advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing,  and  supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline  activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$81.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce  the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act , as amended by the
Small Business Liability  Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. -
Sections  101, 107 and 128 and the Solid Waste Disposal  Act,  as  amended by  the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901  et seq. - Section 8001.
                                          308

-------
Program Area: Compliance
          309

-------
                                                    Compliance Assistance and Centers
                                                              Program Area: Compliance
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY 2010
Actuals
$23,628.3
$756.8
$263.7
$24,648.8
165.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
($26,688.0)
-173.7
Program Project Description:

EPA's Compliance Assistance  and  Centers  program provides information to millions  of
regulated entities, federal agencies, particularly small businesses and local governments, to help
them  understand and meet their environmental  obligations.  This information  lets  regulated
entities know of their legal obligations under federal environmental laws. Compliance assistance
resources  include  comprehensive Web sites, compliance  guides,  emission calculators, and
training materials aimed at specific business communities  or industry  sectors.  Also, on-site
compliance assistance and information is sometimes  provided by EPA inspectors during  an
inspection.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Compliance Assistance  and Centers program  was  streamlined  and  merged  with the
Compliance Monitoring and  Civil Enforcement programs in FY 2011.   EPA merged the
historical tool-based program project activities for compliance assistance and incentives into the
Civil  Enforcement and  Compliance  Monitoring programs.    Achieving  compliance  with
environmental laws requires a focus  on outcomes using  a mix of assistance, incentives, and
enforcement  actions,  often  in   combination  to achieve  environmental and  public health
protections.   The  changes  support the Agency's  emphasis on  pragmatic  and more  nimble
approach to enforcement - using the right tools at the right level of government to achieve
compliance and deterrence from violations of our laws - both civil and criminal.

Performance Targets:

The performance measures previously supported  by this program project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs, where these resources have been
realigned.
                                         310

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$24,906.07 -162.5  FTE) This reduction reflects the Agency's proposal to integrate the
       tool-based  program project  activities for  Compliance  Assistance  into  the  Civil
       Enforcement and  Compliance  Monitoring programs.   Reduced resources  include
       $21,906.0 associated payroll for 162.5 FTE.

   •   (-$716.07 -4.6 FTE) This is a  reduction  to  Compliance Assistance Centers and tool
       development, reflecting a  greater  reliance  on electronic means for  disseminating
       assistance information.  This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. The reduced
       resources include $620.0 associated payroll for 4.6 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA;  TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; CERCLA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; EPAct.
                                         311

-------
                                                                 Compliance Incentives
                                                              Program Area: Compliance
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,560.0
$0.0
$9,560.0
62.5
FY 2010
Actuals
$8,792.6
$14.4
$8,807.0
55.7
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$9,560.0
$0.0
$9,560.0
62.5
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($9,560.0)
$0.0
($9,560.0)
-62.5
Program Project Description:

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.  EPA uses a variety of approaches to encourage entities to
self-disclose environmental violations under various environmental statues. EPA's Audit Policy
encourages internal  audits of environmental compliance  and subsequent correction of self-
discovered violations,  providing  a uniform enforcement response  toward  disclosures  of
violations  and accelerating compliance.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Compliance Incentives  program,  which  encourages internal audits  of environmental
compliance and  subsequent correction of self-discovered  violations, was shifted to the  Civil
Enforcement  program  as part of the  enforcement and compliance  assurance  program's
realignment effort.

In FY 2011, EPA merged the historical tool-based program activities for Compliance Assistance
and  Centers  and Compliance Incentives into  the Civil  Enforcement program.   Achieving
compliance with environmental laws requires a focus on outcomes using a mix of assistance,
incentives, and enforcement actions, often in  combination to achieve environmental  and public
health  protections.   The changes  support  the Agency's pragmatic and flexible approach to
enforcement - using the  right tools at the right level of government to achieve compliance and
deterrence from violations of our laws - both civil and criminal.

Performance Targets:

The performance measures previously supported by this  program project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs, where these resources have been
realigned and can be found in the Performance Four Year  Array in Tab 11.
                                          312

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-$9,560.07 -62.5 FTE) This reduction in resources reflects the integration of enforcement
      tool-based activities by realigning the Compliance Incentives program into the Civil
      Enforcement program. The reduced resources include $8,672.0 associated payroll for
      62.5 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBHRA;  FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
                                        313

-------
                                                                 Compliance Monitoring
                                                               Program Area: Compliance
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY2010
Actuals
$97,937.7
$0.0
$1,181.8
$99,119.5
593.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY2012
Pres Budget
$119,648.0
$138.0
$1,222.0
$121,008.0
617.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$20,248.0
$138.0
$6.0
$20,392.0
5.3
Program Project Description:

The  Compliance Monitoring program's  overarching goal is  to  assure  compliance with the
nation's environmental laws and protect human health and the environment through a program of
inspections and other compliance monitoring activities.  Compliance monitoring comprises all
activities to  determine  whether regulated entities  are  in compliance with  applicable laws,
regulations, permit conditions and settlement agreements.  In addition, compliance monitoring
activities are  conducted to  determine whether conditions exist that may present imminent and
substantial  endangerment to human  health  and the environment.   Compliance  monitoring
activities   include   data   collection,    analysis   and   review,   on-site    compliance
inspections/evaluations, investigations, and reviews of facility records and monitoring reports.

EPA's  Compliance   Monitoring  program  includes the  management  of  compliance  and
enforcement data and information systems, and the use of the data to manage the compliance and
enforcement program.36  The program also responds to information requests, tips, and complaints
from the public.  The Agency uses multi-media approaches - such as cross-media inspections,
sector  initiatives, and risk-based targeting - to take a  more  holistic approach to protecting
ecosystems and to solving  the more intractable environmental  problems.  EPA's Compliance
Monitoring activities target  areas that pose significant risks to human health or the environment,
display patterns of non-compliance, or  involve  disproportionately exposed  populations.   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 (RCRA) regulations.37

EPA coordinates with, provides support to, and oversees the performance of states, local agencies
and tribal governments that  conduct compliance monitoring activities.  The Agency's Compliance
36 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring /index.html.
37 For more information about the Import/Export program, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/intemational/importexport.html.
                                           314

-------
Monitoring program also provides technical assistance and training to federal, state and tribal
inspectors.  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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, as part of  EPA's Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative,  the Agency is
proposing to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the compliance monitoring program
with an  emphasis on electronic reporting  (e-reporting), enhanced  data  systems to collect,
synthesize and disseminate  monitoring data, and deployment  of state  of the  art monitoring
equipment to the field.  The old model relied heavily on individual facility based inspections
conducted by EPA and states to assess and compel compliance.  EPA is concerned over the level
of non-compliance with environmental  laws.   Data that the Agency has - although not
comprehensive - paints a picture of noncompliance that is troubling. It is increasingly difficult
and expensive, for businesses as well as the  Agency, to ensure compliance by using individual
site inspections, paper reporting, and other outdated tools and old approaches.  As a result, the
old model must be revisited as the universe of regulated sources is outstripping the resources
available to state and federal  inspectors. Electronic reporting combined with deployment of state
of the art monitoring equipment will substantially enhance the Agency's ability to identify the
most  serious violations,  detect pollution problems earlier,  and assure compliance all  while
increasing efficiency.

The Agency is proposing in  this new model the following changes to its compliance monitoring
program:

    >  Rulemaking improvements. The Agency will review compliance reporting requirements
       contained in existing  rules to identify opportunities for conversion to a national electronic
       reporting format.  As part  of the process of developing new rules, EPA will  work to
       identify opportunities where  objective, self-monitoring  and/or self-certification, public
       accountability, and electronic reporting  elements  might be appropriate.   Funding is
       requested in a number of programs to support the transition to electronic reporting in
       EPA's programmatic  databases.

    >  Obtaining new monitoring technology. EPA will invest in modern monitoring technology
       such as: portable emission detectors, thermal imaging cameras, flow meters, and remote
       (fence line) monitoring equipment to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our
       compliance monitoring program. These innovative technologies will increase the ability
       of EPA and states to  detect  violations across programs and focus our efforts on the most
       significant problems.

    >  Using a market based approach for electronic  reporting  from regulated entities.   EPA
       will create an open platform "electronic reporting file" data exchange standard, modeled
       after that used by the  IRS to collect tax data.  The intent is to unleash the expertise of the
       private sector marketplace to create new electronic reporting tools. These private  sector
                                          315

-------
       electronic reporting tools would be based on EPA data standards and would replace the
       largely paper-based reporting systems that evolved over the past 30 years.   Further, in
       those programs where EPA has already built electronic reporting tools, the private sector
       may, enhance these tools to better  support industry needs,  enabling EPA to  largely
       eliminate the need to continue to fund the operation and maintenance of these tools.

    >  Expand the capability of EPA and state data systems. EPA will expand its  capability to
       receive, analyze, and make publicly  available  information  on the  compliance status of
       facilities and their impact on public health and the environment.

The Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative will improve efficiency. At the same time,
prioritizing the focus of the Agency's work promotes  the  effectiveness  of the program.   In
February 2010, the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  program  announced three
overarching goals to guide its work: 1) aggressively go  after pollution problems that matter to
communities; 2) reset our relationship with  states; and 3)  improve transparency.  At the same
time, the program announced the selection of new National Enforcement Initiatives for  the FY
2011-2013 period, replacing the prior set of National Enforcement Priorities.38

The new National Initiatives include:

    >  Municipal Infrastructure - keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of our
       nation's waters;

    >  Concentrated Animal Feeding  Operations (CAFO)  - preventing animal  waste from
       contaminating surface and ground waters;

    >  Air Toxics - cutting toxic air pollution from facilities out of compliance with the Clean
       Air Act;

    >  Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of  Significant Deterioration - reducing
       widespread air pollution from the largest sources,  especially the coal-fired utility, cement,
       glass and acid sectors;

    >  Mining and Mineral Processing  Initiative - protecting and cleaning up  our communities
       from toxic and hazardous waste;  and

    >  Energy Extraction Sector - assuring compliance with environmental laws.

In FY 2012, the Compliance Monitoring  program will continue to  identify the most  serious
violations in these National Initiatives so that appropriate enforcement actions can be initiated to
remedy the violations and achieve the stated goals.
38 EPA previously used the term "National Enforcement Priorities" to refer to these initiatives. EPA changed the terminology to
"National Enforcement Initiatives" to describe this work more accurately and to make clear that these areas of focus do not
include all the priority problems or compliance and enforcement work EPA is doing.
                                            316

-------
To ensure the quality of compliance monitoring activities, EPA is continuing to develop national
policies, update inspection manuals, provide required training for inspectors and issue inspector
credentials.  In  FY  2012,  EPA will  continue to  conduct  training  to  ensure  that the
inspectors/investigators are:  1) knowledgeable  of environmental requirements  and policies; 2)
technically proficient in conducting 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, as well as
authorizing  states/tribes employees to conduct inspections and  evaluations on EPA's behalf.
EPA works  across the Agency and with states  and tribes to build capacity,  share tools and
approaches,  and develop networks of professionals that can share and help build expertise.

EPA monitors the quality of laboratory data that is required to be reported to the Agency by the
regulated community.  In FY 2012, the Agency will work to improve its efficiency by integrating
technology  and e-reporting into the  inspection and  evaluation process.  Adopting 21st  century
tools provides an opportunity to improve the timeliness and accuracy of data collection and entry
endows the program with uniformity in the inspection and evaluation process and increases the
speed for submitting inspection and evaluation reports.

Compliance monitoring includes the  use of data systems to run its compliance and enforcement
programs under the various statutes and programs  that EPA enforces.  In FY 2012, the Agency's
focus will be  on enhancing its data systems to  support electronic reporting,  providing  more
comprehensive,  accessible data  to  the public,  and  allowing  for improved integration of
environmental information with health data and other pertinent data sources from other federal
agencies and private sources. The Agency will continue its multi-year project to modernize its
national enforcement and compliance  data  system,  the Integrated Compliance Information
System (ICIS), which supports both compliance monitoring and civil enforcement. ICIS is in the
second of three phases of development:

   •   Phase I of ICIS established a multi-media  Federal enforcement and compliance database
       in FY 2002.

   •   Phase II of ICIS is the modernization of  the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which
       supports EPA  and state management of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
       System (NPDES) program. As of February 2011, 34 states,  2 tribes,  8 territories and the
       District of Columbia are using ICIS. In FY 2012, one additional state will move to  ICIS,
       with  the last 15 states moving to ICIS in FY 2013, completing Phase II.

   •   Phase III of ICIS expands  the system to include the unique requirements of the Clean Air
       Act  stationary sources compliance and enforcement program through the  modernization
       of the Air Facility System (AFS).  In FY  2012, EPA  will continue to incorporate  work
       done in FY 2011  on system design, detailed business  requirements  and alternatives
       analyses into ICIS-CAA system development.  More specifically, in FY 2012, EPA will
       continue work on the AFS modernization by implementing a pilot Air Toxics module in
       ICIS to manage information for these sources. This information will be integrated with
       existing ICIS capabilities for tracking inspections, compliance status  and enforcement
       actions. In addition, the AFS information  will be added to our targeting tools and  made
                                          317

-------
       publicly available through the Agency's Enforcement and Compliance History On-line
       (ECHO) web si
       using the data.
(ECHO) web site39, with easy-to-use tools added to assist the public in understanding and
EPA  is  committed  to  making  meaningful  facility compliance information available  and
accessible to the  public using 21st century technologies.   EPA will  continue to increase the
transparency of EPA's monitoring and enforcement program by making multi-media compliance
monitoring information available to the public through the ECHO Internet website during FY
2012. This site, and its powerful companion tool that serves more than 400 government entities,
the Online Targeting  and Information System (OTIS), provides communities and regulators with
compliance status information, averaging approximately 187,500 queries per month in FY 2010.

The Compliance Monitoring program will  help advance additional Administrator's priorities. In
FY 2012, EPA will continue its focus on improving the health of children by assessing how non-
compliance  contributes  to significant  health  risks in schools,  and  target compliance  and
enforcement actions  to reduce risks to children.  In addition, the enforcement program  will
continue implementing the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order 13508 through the Chesapeake Bay
program.  The Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River Basin initiatives will support the Agency's
priority to restore these water bodies by  providing information about wet weather sources of
pollution.   This  also will ensure that these efforts result in an increase in knowledge,  use,
transparency and  public access to data about wet weather sources through: 1) building an e-
reporting module  for getting non-major compliance monitoring data into ICIS-NPDES to pilot
with states in the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin; 2) building and deploying
targeting tools to help identify the most significant sources of non-compliance and discharges of
pollutants most responsible for the impairment of these important water bodies; and 3) making
all non-enforcement  confidential data available, with easy-to-use tools to aid in  the public's
ability to use and understand the data.

The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 directed the Agency to create the National Enforcement
Training Institute  (NETI)  to  provide  environmental enforcement  and  compliance  training
nationwide to all levels of government.  In FY 2012, NETI will continue to operate in its new
streamlined structure to promote and support enforcement training across the Agency, taking
advantage of web-based tools.

EPA will continue to  review all notices for trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and for
export of Cathode Ray Tubes to ensure compliance with domestic regulations and international
agreements.  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 FY  2010,  EPA responded to  1,820 notices
representing 560 import notices and 1,260 export notices.

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
 1 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/


                                          318

-------
companies and federal facilities.  The program also will focus on monitoring compliance with
gasoline rules.

Work under this program project supports the Agency's Priority Goal addressing water quality.
A list of the Agency's Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure

(409) Conduct
2 1,000 federal
inspections and
evaluations.

FY
2010
Target




FY
2010
Actual



FY
2011
CR
Target




FY
2012
Target

21,000


Units


Inspections/Evaluations

Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(4 12) Review the
overall compliance
status of 100 percent of
the open consent
decrees.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target
100
Units
Percent
Results  will first become available for these measures at the end of FY 2012, and will be
reported in the FY  2012  Annual Performance Report  and the  FY  2014  Congressional
Justification.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$2,620.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
      FTE.

    •  (-17.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
      rates.

    •  (+$2,346.07 +10.2 FTE)  This internal  redirection  reflects  the  Agency's  efforts  to
      streamline and increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program by
      consolidating accounts and resources. Specifically, the Agency's FY 2012 Enforcement
      and Compliance Assurance budget reflects changes in how the Agency will accomplish
      its mission, a new cycle of national  priorities and outcomes, and the program's evolving
      role vis-a-vis the  states.   The additional resources are  realigned from the Compliance
      Assistance and Centers program and include $1,346.0 associated payroll transferred from
      the Compliance Incentive program
                                          319

-------
•  (+$1,906.07 +8.0  FTE)  This redirection transfers  resources  from the Enforcement
   Training program for the National Enforcement Training Institute's (NETI) support for
   web-based training, cooperative  agreements  for the four Regional  State Environmental
   Environment Associations, and EPA's legal intern program.  The additional resources
   include $1,056 associated payroll for 8.0 FTE.

•  (+$9,631.07 +2.0  FTE)  This increase supports  the Agency's efforts to  modernize
   compliance monitoring and reporting as  part of the  Regaining Ground in Compliance
   Initiative.   The initiative  promotes  efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  the  compliance
   monitoring program with an emphasis on electronic reporting, enhanced data systems to
   collect, synthesize, and disseminate monitoring data,  and deployment of state of the art
   monitoring equipment to the field to increase  compliance with the nation's environmental
   laws. The additional resources include $264.0 associated payroll for 2.0 FTE.

•  (+$1,540.07 +1.0 FTE) This increase  will allow EPA to  begin  modernizing the Air
   Facilities System (AFS) by building an Air Toxics module in ICIS to manage information
   for these sources.  This information will be integrated with existing capabilities to track
   inspections, compliance status, and enforcement action and added to our targeting tools.
   The information will be made public through the Agency's ECHO web site, with easy-to-
   use tools added to assist the public in understanding and using the data. The additional
   resources include $132.0 associated payroll for 1.0 FTE.

•  (+$2,000.0) This increase supports the design and development of ICIS-NPDES to enable
   the electronic (batch) transfer of NPDES data from  full batch states'  system to ICIS-
   NPDES  via the Environmental Exchange Network.   In addition EPA will provide
   assistance  to the full  batch states to help  them  modify their own  state systems to
   electronically flow data to ICIS-NPDES via the Environmental Exchange Network.

•  (+$600.0) This increase is part of the Agency's Mississippi River Basin Initiative.  The
   Compliance Monitoring program will do the  following:  1) build an electronic reporting
   module for getting non-major permit data into ICIS-NPDES to pilot with states in the
   Mississippi River Basin; 2) build  and  deploy targeting  tools to identify the  most
   significant sources of noncompliance and discharges of pollutants  responsible for the
   impairment of this water body; and,  3)  make all non-enforcement  confidential  data
   available, with easy-to-use  tools to aid in the public's ability to use and understand the
   data.

•  (+$145.07 +1.1 FTE) This  change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
   will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency's priorities.  Specifically,
   this change reflects  a regional realignment  of resources to enhance  improvements in
   NPDES data quality and the ability of the  states data systems to interface effectively with
   ICIS. The additional resources include $145.0 associated payroll for 1.1 FTE.

•  (-$425.0) This  reflects a reduction as  part of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
   This initiative targets  certain categories of  spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
   including advisory contracts, travel,  general  services, printing  and supplies.  EPA will
                                       320

-------
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •  (-$115.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA;  TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA;  FIFRA; ODA;  NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
                                         321

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
           322

-------
                                                                      Civil Enforcement
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY2010
Actuals
$145,896.6
$0.0
$2,082.8
$147,979.4
980.8
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY2012
Pres Budget
$191,404.0
$832.0
$2,902.0
$195,138.0
1,219.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$44,768.0
$832.0
$904.0
$46,504.0
230.5
Program Project Description:

The Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to assure compliance with the nation's
environmental laws to protect  human health and the environment.  Effective enforcement  is
essential to deter violations and to promote compliance with federal environmental statutes and
regulations.  The program collaborates with the Department of Justice and states, local agencies
and tribal governments to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and
regulations.  The program seeks to focus on violations that threaten communities, ensure a level
economic playing field by ensuring that violators do not realize an economic benefit from
noncompliance, and deter future violations. The Civil Enforcement program develops, litigates,
and settles administrative and civil judicial cases against serious violators of environmental laws.

EPA's National Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program is responsible for maximizing
compliance with 12 environmental statutes, 28 distinct programs under those statutes, and dozens
of regulatory requirements under  those programs which apply in various combinations to a
universe of approximately 40 million regulated federal and private 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  initiatives.   The  enforcement
program coordinates the selection of these initiatives with programs and regional offices within
EPA,  and with states, local agencies and tribes, in addition to soliciting public comment.

EPA uses a variety of integrated tools to maximize compliance with the nation's environmental
laws.  This includes assistance to regulated entities to ensure fair notice and to make clear how to
comply  with regulations;  compliance monitoring (i.e., monitoring compliance status, identifying
violations through on-site inspections, investigations, and collection and analysis of compliance
data); compliance incentives to  motivate regulated facilities/companies to identify, disclose and
correct violations; and administrative, civil and criminal enforcement.  In addition to using these
tools,  the  enforcement  program  provides  oversight of state  and  delegated  local  agency
performance to ensure that national environmental laws are enforced in  a consistent, equitable
                                           323

-------
manner that protects public health and the environment.  EPA also works directly with tribal
governments to build their capacity to implement environmental enforcement programs.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA leadership has focused attention on identifying where the most significant vulnerabilities
exist, in terms of scale and potential risk.  In FY 2012, the Agency is proposing the Regaining
Ground in Compliance Initiative that will begin to harness the tools of modern technology to
make EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program more  efficient and effective.
EPA is concerned over the level of non-compliance with environmental laws.  Data that the
Agency has - although not comprehensive - paints a picture of noncompliance that is troubling.
It  is increasingly difficult and expensive, for  businesses as  well  as  the Agency, to ensure
compliance by using individual site inspections, paper reporting, and other outdated tools and old
approaches. EPA must start using 21st century electronic  reporting (e-reporting), monitoring
tools, and market-based approaches to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our limited
resources in protecting human health and the environment and ensuring  a level playing field for
American businesses.

Under this initiative in FY 2012, EPA will review compliance reporting requirements contained
in existing rules to identify opportunities for conversion to a national electronic reporting format.
As part of the process of developing new rules, EPA will identify opportunities to use objective
self-monitoring,  self-certification or  third party  certification, public accountability, advanced
monitoring, and  electronic reporting requirements. Electronic reporting replacing paper based
reporting is likely to be a common feature of most new rules, although the appropriate approach
and tools used for particular rules will vary.

EPA also needs to use more modern monitoring technology (e.g., portable emission detectors,
thermal imaging cameras, flow meters,  and remote (e.g. fence line) monitoring equipment) to
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our compliance monitoring program.  Using modern
monitoring  tools  will allow EPA  and state  inspectors to do more  efficient and  effective
inspections  and compliance  verification.  Modern monitoring  will increase EPA's ability to
detect  violations  across all  programs and target enforcement  resources towards the biggest
problems.  Maximizing the use of advanced data and monitoring tools will allow EPA to focus
its limited inspection and enforcement resources in those areas where they are most effective or
most necessary such as:  complex industrial operations that require physical  inspection, repeat
violators,  cases involving significant harm to human  health or the environment, or potential
criminal violations.

In FY 2010, through its efforts in the core  program and  national initiatives,  EPA achieved
pollution reduction commitments totaling 1.5 billion pounds. In FY 2011-2013, the Agency will
continue to focus on complex and challenging  national pollution, problems including  Clean
Water Act "wet weather"  discharges,  violations  of the  Clean  Air Act New  Source
Review/Prevention  of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD)  requirements  and  Air  Toxics
regulations, and  Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act  (RCRA) violations at mineral
processing facilities,  as well as assessing and addressing  emerging problems in the energy
extraction sector.   Information on initiatives, regulatory requirements,  enforcement alerts and
                                          324

-------
EPA results will be made available to the public and the regulated community on EPA's web
sites.40

EPA's response to the Deepwater Horizon oil  spill  will continue in FY 2012, as our civil
enforcement resources provide primary support for the U.S. Department of Justice's civil action
against  BP, Anadarko, and  others  responsible  for the Deepwater  Horizon incident.   The
Department of Justice filed its complaint on behalf of EPA, the Coast Guard and other federal
plaintiffs in December 2010,  and EPA expects to be actively participating  in this litigation,
discovery,  and response to court orders  throughout FY 2012  and  has  requested additional
resources to support this work.

EPA will collaborate with states, tribes and communities to reduce air toxics pollution, especially
pollution affecting vulnerable communities.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue to support the air
toxics  initiative  by targeting air monitoring,  inspections,  and  enforcement  activities in
communities.   Through targeting air monitoring, inspections and enforcement activities the
program will reduce toxic emissions for critical areas.

EPA's RCRA Corrective Action enforcement program supports the goal set by the Agency and
its state partners of attaining remedy construction at 95 percent of 3,747 RCRA facilities by the
year 2020.  In 2010, EPA issued the "National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action" to
promote and  communicate  nationally  consistent  enforcement  and  compliance assurance
principles, practices and tools to help achieve this goal.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue targeted
enforcement under this strategy and will work with its state partners to  assess the contribution of
enforcement in achieving the 2020 goal.

The Civil Enforcement program encompasses the full range of environmental issues - water, air,
waste, and others - at federal  sites as well.   The Federal Facilities Enforcement program  will
continue to expeditiously pursue  enforcement actions at Federal facilities where  significant
violations are  discovered, with a specific focus expected on  noncompliance with stormwater,
underground storage tank, and RCRA waste requirements.  The program will also continue its
partnership in FedCenter, the  federal facility  environmental  stewardship and  compliance
assistance center cosponsored by a dozen federal agencies.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 requires increased use of renewable
fuels. In FY 2012, the Civil Enforcement program will help the regulated community understand
their statutory obligations under the EISA; inspect renewable fuel production facilities; monitor
compliance with renewable fuel requirements; monitor and enforce the credit trading program;
and, undertake administrative and judicial enforcement actions  against violators.

Other base activities will continue in FY 2012, and reliable information on compliance  and
program performance remains critical. EPA's Civil Enforcement program  will continue to  rely
heavily  on the  Integrated Compliance Information  System  to manage  its  compliance  and
enforcement activities by tracking the status  of all civil judicial and administrative enforcement
actions, as well as compliance and enforcement results.
  For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/index.html


                                           325

-------
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 harm from the environment,
including minority and/or low-income  areas.  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.

Work under this program project supports the  EPA's  Priority Goal, addressing water quality
(specified in full in Appendix A).

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(400) Reduce, treat, or
eliminate 480 million
estimated pounds of air
pollutants through
concluded enforcement
actions.

FY 2010
Target


480



FY 2010
Actual


410


FY2011
CR
Target


480



FY 2012
Target


480



Units


Million
Pounds



Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(402) Reduce, treat, or
eliminate 320 million
estimated pounds of
water pollutants
through concluded
enforcement actions.

FY 2010
Target


320



FY 2010
Actual


1,000


FY2011
CR
Target


320



FY 2012
Target


320



Units


Million
Pounds


Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(404) Reduce, treat, or
eliminate 3.8 million
estimated pounds of
toxic and pesticide
pollutants through
concluded enforcement
actions.
FY 2010
Target
3.8
FY 2010
Actual
8.3
FY2011
CR
Target
3.8
FY 2012
Target
3.8
Units
Million
Pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(405) Reduce, treat, or
eliminate 6,500 million
estimated pounds of
FY 2010
Target
6,500
FY 2010
Actual
11,800
FY2011
CR
Target
6,500
FY 2012
Target
6,500
Units
Million
Pounds
                                          326

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
hazardous waste
through concluded
enforcement actions.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(410) Initiate 3,900
civil judicial and
administrative
enforcement cases.

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target




FY 2012
Target

3,900


Units

Cases


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(4 11) Conclude 3,800
civil judicial and
administrative
enforcement cases.

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target




FY 2012
Target

3,800


Units

Cases

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$4,765.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-7.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$32,120.07 +214.8 FTE) This increase reflects the Agency's  efforts to streamline and
       increase the efficiency  of the compliance  and  enforcement program by consolidating
       accounts  and resources, redirecting  152.3  FTE from the Compliance Assistance and
       Centers program and 62.5 FTE from the Compliance Incentives program.  The Agency's
       FY 2012 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance budget reflects changes in how the
       Agency will accomplish its mission, a new cycle of national priorities and outcomes, and
       the  program's  evolving role vis-a-vis  the  states.   The additional resources include
       $29,232.0 associated payroll for 214.8 FTE.

   •   (+$2,000.07 +13.3 FTE) This reflects an increase in the Civil Enforcement program to
       support  Compliance Assistance and Incentives activities.  The additional resources
       include $1,862.0 associated payroll.

   •   (-$1,106.07  -7.9 FTE)  This  decrease  reflects  7.4 FTE  transferred to the  Criminal
       Enforcement to accurately reflect the current legal support the  regions are providing to
       the Criminal Enforcement program and 0.5  FTE to NEPA Implementation program to
                                          327

-------
       review Environmental Impact Statements.   The reduced resources include $1,106.0
       associated payroll for 7.9 FTE.

   •   (+$4,567.07 +2.0 FTE) This increase supports  the  Agency's Regaining Ground in
       Compliance Initiative  efforts  to increase  compliance with the  nation's environmental
       laws.  The investment will modernize the Agency's approach to enforcement by ensuring
       new and existing rules require electronic reporting and revamping data systems to collect,
       synthesize and disseminate monitoring data, and deploying monitoring equipment to the
       field  to increase support for the civil  enforcement program.  The  additional resources
       include $280.0 associated payroll for 2.0 FTE

   •   (+$2,160.07 +6.5  FTE)  This increase supports the enforcement component of  an
       Agencywide effort to reduce air toxics pollution within at-risk communities and around
       schools and other places where children may be exposed.  These resources will be used to
       assess compliance with existing air toxics emission rules and pursue enforcement actions,
       as appropriate. The additional  resources include $910.0 associated payroll for 6.5 FTE.

   •   (+$1,029.07+3.2 FTE)  This increase  is  provided  for  Deepwater Horizon  litigation
       support, discovery management, and the continuing civil investigation  against existing
       and potential additional defendants. This litigation support is not being  provided by the
       Department of Justice.  The additional resources include $448.0 associated payroll for 3.2
       FTE.

   •   (-$76.0)  This decrease will reduce litigation and case support for lower priority cases.

   •   (-$377.0) This decrease in travel  costs reflects an effort to reduce  the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$269.0) This decrease reflects a  reduction as  part  of the Administrative Efficiency
       Initiative.   This initiative  targets  certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and
       reductions,  including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.
       EPA will continue  its work  to redesign processes  and streamline activities in  both
       administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$45.0) This decrease reflects a  realignment of Agency IT and  telecommunications
       resources for  Computer Security Incident Response  Center  from  across  programs to
       Information Security 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.
                                          328

-------
                                                                   Criminal Enforcement
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                  Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$57,703.0
291.8
FY2010
Actuals
$49,043.2
$8,417.3
$57,460.5
284.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$57,703.0
291.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$51,345.0
$8,252.0
$59,597.0
296.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$1,708.0
$186.0
$1,894.0
4.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's Criminal Enforcement program investigates the most serious and complex environmental
crimes committed by individual and corporate defendants. The program protects human health
and the environment by providing federal,  state  and local prosecutors with the investigative,
forensic  and  technical  evidence needed to successfully prosecute violations of environmental
statutes and associated violations of Title 18  of the United States Code such as fraud, conspiracy
and obstruction of justice.  Successful prosecutions deter other potential violators, eliminate the
incentive for  companies to "pay to pollute," and help  ensure that businesses that follow the rules
do not face unfair competition from those that break the rules.  Criminal enforcement also sends
a strong  deterrence message in communities where residents have suffered disproportionate
pollution impacts, in part due to criminal actions.

These  efforts support  environmental  crimes prosecutions  primarily by the  Department  of
Justice's  Environmental  Crimes Section and the  United  States Attorneys, but occasionally by
state,  tribal and local prosecutors.   Special Agents (criminal  investigators)  evaluate leads;
interview witnesses and suspects;  and  review documents  and  data  from  environmental,
inspection, and other databases and files.  Investigators  remain involved during prosecutions,
testifying in court, assisting in securing plea agreements, or planning sentencing conditions that
will require defendants  to undertake projects to improve environmental conditions or develop
environmental management systems to enhance performance.

EPA Special  Agents also participate in task forces with other federal law enforcement agencies,
as well as state and local law officials, and participate in specialized training  at the Federal Law
Enforcement  Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA and other locations.  These joint efforts
and training  help  build state,  local,  and tribal  environmental enforcement expertise,  which
enables them to protect their communities and offer valuable leads to EPA's program.41
  For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
                                           329

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  the Criminal Enforcement program will continue to identify and investigate cases
with significant environmental, human health, and deterrence impacts while balancing its overall
case load across all pollution statutes.  The program has completed its three year hiring strategy
to increase the number of  Special Agents to 200 by the end of FY 2010.   The Criminal
Enforcement  program  continues to "tier"  significant cases based upon categories of human
health and environmental impacts (e.g., death, serious injury, human exposure, remediation),
release and discharge characteristics (e.g., hazardous or toxic pollutants,  continuing violations),
and subject characteristics (e.g., national corporation, recidivist violator).

The Criminal Enforcement  program will continue to enhance its collaboration and coordination
with the Civil Enforcement  program to ensure that the EPA enforcement program as a whole
responds to violations as effectively as possible.  The Criminal  Enforcement program will work
with the Civil Enforcement program to  identify  national  enforcement  initiative cases  and
violations of national EPA priorities that would most effectively be addressed through criminal
prosecution. This coordinated approach is accomplished by employing 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 repeat
significant  non-compliers, where appropriate.   Focusing on  parallel  proceedings and other
mechanisms that allow 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. In FY 2012,  criminal enforcement will continue to implement management oversight
controls  and national policies to ensure that violators in similar circumstances receive similar
treatment under federal environmental laws.   Consistency  is  promoted by evaluating  all
investigations  from the national perspective, overseeing all investigations to ensure compliance
with program 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 by  developing,  implementing,  and periodically
reviewing and revising policies and programs.

In FY 2012, the program will continue to use data from the electronic Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS). Information associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases will be used
to systematically compile a  profile of criminal cases, including the extent to which the cases
support Agencywide, program-specific or regional enforcement  priorities.  The 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 and continue to use the
fugitive website42.  The fugitive website enlists the public and law enforcement agencies to help
apprehend defendants who have fled the country or are in hiding to avoid  prosecution for alleged
environmental crimes or sentencing for crimes for which they have been found guilty. Since the
 • For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/fugitives/
                                           330

-------
site was established in FY 2009, five fugitives have been captured, and two more surrendered to
law enforcement authorities.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(418) Increase the
percentage of criminal
cases having the most
significant health,
environmental, and
deterrence impacts to
43 percent.
FY 2010
Target







FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target







FY 2012
Target



43



Units



Percent



Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
(4 19) Maintain a 75
percent rate for
criminal cases with
individual defendants.
FY 2010
Target



FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target



FY 2012
Target

75

Units

Percent


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(420) Increase the
percentage of criminal
cases with charges
filed to 40 percent.

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target




FY 2012
Target

40


Units

Percent

Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
(421) Maintain a 85
percent conviction rate
for criminal
defendants.
FY 2010
Target



FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target



FY 2012
Target

85

Units

Percent

The  four new criminal  enforcement GPRA measures ("cases with charges filed," "criminal
defendants convicted or pled guilty," "percentage of cases with an individual defendant," and the
"percentage of cases with the most significant environmental, health and deterrent impacts") will
be reported in the FY 2012 Annual Performance Report.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,610.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.
                                          331

-------
   •   (-5.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$1,036.07 +7.4  FTE) This increase reflects a transfer  from Civil  Enforcement  to
       Criminal Enforcement to accurately  reflect the current legal support the regions are
       providing  to  the  criminal  enforcement program.   The  additional  resources  include
       $1,036.0 associated payroll for 7.4 FTE.

   •   (+$1,158.07 +3.0 FTE)  This increase in resources, which includes $526.0 associated
       payroll,  support the Agency's  efforts to address the Deepwater Horizon  Oil Spill
       litigation.  This litigation support is not being provided by the Department of Justice.

   •   (-$1,597.07 -1.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a reduced level  of resources for the Criminal
       Enforcement program, which includes $168.0 associated payroll for 1.0 FTE.

   •   (-$96.0) The  decrease in  travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$403.0)  This  reflects a  reduction in support for law enforcement telecommunications
       and IT capabilities.

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).
                                          332

-------
                                                                  Enforcement Training
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,2 78.0
$899.0
$4,177.0
20.8
FY 2010
Actuals
$3,220.0
$756.5
$3,976.5
18.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$3,2 78.0
$899.0
$4,177.0
20.8
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($3,278.0)
($899.0)
($4,177.0)
-20.8
Program Project Description:

EPA is required by the Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 to provide environmental compliance
and  enforcement training nationwide through  the National  Enforcement  Training  Institute
(NETI).  The Enforcement Training program oversees the design and delivery of core  and
specialized enforcement  courses, through NETI43, 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2012, the Enforcement Training program was   consolidated into the Compliance
Monitoring program  which houses  other training activities.  NETI activities and associated
resources were moved to the Compliance  Monitoring program to serve as:   1) the central
coordination  point for training  that is planned and conducted by EPA offices;  2) the grant
management for cooperative agreements that provide training in the compliance and enforcement
areas to state  programs; 3) the Legal Intern program; and 4) the lead source in conducting web-
based enforcement training.

Performance Targets:

Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this program project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-$1,906.07 -8.0  FTE) This  reduction transfers the remaining Enforcement Training
       activities  to the  Compliance Monitoring  program.   The reduced  resources include
       $1,056.0 associated payroll for 8.0 FTE.
  For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
                                          333

-------
   •  (-$1,372.07 -7.6 FTE) This reduction streamlines NETI by reducing support for classroom
      training and increasing web-based  training.   The reduced resources include  $1,103.0
      associated payroll for 7.6 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA;  RLBPHRA; RCRA;  CWA;  SDWA;  CAA;  TSCA; EPCRA;  TSCA;  FIFRA;  ODA;
NAAEC: LPA-US/MX-BR: NEPA.
                                        334

-------
                                                                  Environmental Justice
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$7,090.0
$795.0
$7,885.0
32.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$9,567.4
$891.0
$10,458.4
32.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$7,090.0
$795.0
$7,885.0
32.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$7,397.0
$600.0
$7,997.0
32.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$307.0
($195.0)
$112.0
-0.7
Program Project Description:

EPA is committed to identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by
communities disproportionately impacted by pollution and supporting community efforts to build
healthy,  sustainable green neighborhoods.   The  EPA's  Environmental Justice (EJ) program
facilitates EPA efforts to engage  communities in key decision-making processes and to integrate
environmental justice considerations in  EPA programs, policies, and activities.44  The Agency
conducts and supports work to "open its doors" to historically underrepresented groups, such as
minority, low-income,  and tribal populations.  EPA also promotes the active engagement of
community groups, other federal agencies, states,  local governments and tribal governments to
recognize,  support, and advance environmental  protection  and public health  for vulnerable
communities.  The EJ program provides financial and technical assistance to empower low-
income or minority communities to protect  themselves from environmental  harm.  The EJ
program  partners with other Agency programs to create  scientific analytical methods, a legal
foundation,  and public  engagement  practices  that enable the incorporation of environmental
justice considerations in  EPA's  regulatory  and  policy  decisions.  Finally,  the  EJ program
supports  Agency efforts to strengthen internal mechanisms  to integrate environmental justice
including communication,  training, performance management, and accountability measures.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will implement Environmental Justice activities consistent with the vision  outlined  in the
Agency's FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan.  EPA will  work to reduce exposures for those at greatest
risk and ensure that environmental justice is integral to all Agency activities.  The EJ program
will work with Regional and program offices to implement the Agency's annual  action plan for
the Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy for  Environmental Justice and Children's Health. The
EJ  program also will  continue  to work with Regional  and program  offices to  maintain an
44 For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/index.html
                                           335

-------
inventory of successful efforts that track and report progress in achieving results in communities
disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards.

In FY 2012, EPA's EJ program will intensify its efforts to  incorporate environmental justice
considerations in the rulemaking process.  An ongoing challenge for EPA has been to  develop
rules  that implement existing statutory authority  while working  to  reduce  disproportionate
pollutant burdens and cumulative impacts from multiple  sources. In FY 2012, the EJ program
will work with Regional and program offices to apply effective methods suitable for decision-
making involving disproportionate environmental health  impacts on minority, low-income, and
tribal  populations.  As part of this effort, EPA is working on technical guidance to support the
integration of environmental justice considerations in analysis that support EPA's actions.

In FY 2012, EPA's EJ program will continue to lead the  integration of environmental justice
considerations into EPA's  planning and performance measurement processes.  The EJ program
will continue to develop guidance that will  support Agency efforts to identify disproportionately
impacted minority, low income, and tribal populations, establish commitments to address them,
and measure and report progress.

In FY 2012, the  EJ program will continue to enhance its  capabilities of on-line tools to support
the integration of environmental justice considerations into the daily work of the Agency.  The
EJ program will maintain EJView, a mapping and public access tool that enables public access to
environmental, public health, demographic, EPA grant and other environmental justice project
information.  EJView will  enable the public to examine environmental conditions  in their
communities, track progress of grant-funded initiatives to address environmental justice issues,
and access other information about projects and issues of interest to their local communities.

In FY 2012, the EPA EJ  program will work with  other federal agencies to continue building
strong relationships with historically underrepresented communities.  EPA will focus its efforts
to ensure the integration of environmental justice principles in environmental decision-making.
The EJ program will convene two full meetings of the National Environmental  Justice Advisory
Council  (NEJAC), the Agency's Federal Advisory  Committee Act  (FACA)  committee on
environmental justice  issues.  These meetings will be augmented by meetings of issue-specific
workgroups and public teleconferences.   The NEJAC  is an important vehicle for  ensuring
transparency  and meaningful  public  involvement.   Not  only  is  the  NEJAC  charged with
providing advice to  EPA  on  broad policy issue  areas, it  will be called upon  to  organize
community  input  regarding specific Agency  actions  such as  the  development of tools,
monitoring plans and community-based initiatives.  Finally, the EJ program  will support the
integration of environmental  justice issues into the  deliberations  of  other  EPA FACA
committees.

In addition to planned FACA activities in  FY 2012, the  EJ program will work to promote the
integration of environmental justice  principles in the programs, policies and activities  of other
federal  agencies.   Pursuant to Executive Order  12898, EPA  will continue to convene  the
Interagency Working  Group (IWG)  on Environmental Justice and will use this  mechanism to
provide and foster training  and technical assistance to other federal agencies on the integration of
environmental justice in their programs. Moreover, the EJ program will use the IWG to identify
                                          336

-------
collaborative opportunities to  support the achievement of healthy and sustainable community
goals.

In FY 2012, EPA will  continue to manage its Environmental Justice Small Grants program,
which assists community-based organizations and other groups in developing solutions to local
environmental issues.  Since its inception in  1994, the EJ program  has  awarded nearly $38
million to more than 1,200 community-based organizations and other groups to support efforts to
address local environmental and/or health issues.

In FY 2012, the EJ program 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 online training.  Specific topics will include but not be
limited to environmental justice integration principles, incorporating  environmental justice in
regulatory analysis,  and discussions of pertinent statutory authorities.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives that benefit disproportionately
burdened  minority,  low-income, and tribal populations.  Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$151.0) This increase  reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs  for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (+$5.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to  resources for telephone, Local Area
       Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

    •   (-$36.0) This decrease in travel costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and  conferencing.

    •   (+$7.0)  This change reflects a modest increase in  contracts and grants to support the
       Agency's Environmental Justice program.

    •   (+$206.0) This reflects a redirection from Superfund  to EPM dollars (no net  gain in
       program budget).
                                           337

-------
    •   (-$26.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to  redesign  processes and streamline activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Executive  Order  12898; RCRA;  CWA; SDWA;  CAA;  TSCA; EPCRA;  FIFRA; NEPA;
Pollution Prevention Act.
                                           338

-------
                                                                 NEPA Implementation
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$18,258.0
$18,258.0
117.7
FY2010
Actuals
$18,313.4
$18,313.4
119.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$18,258.0
$18,258.0
117.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$18,072.0
$18,072.0
115.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($186.0)
($186.0)
-2.5
Program Project Description:

As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act, the NEPA Implementation program reviews Environmental Impact Statements  (EISs) that
evaluate the anticipated environmental impacts of proposed major federal  actions.  The review
includes assessing options for avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts while making the
comments available to the public and  allowing for public input. 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 that prevent adverse environmental impacts.  The program encourages other
federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations into their decision making
as they perform  environmental analyses (both EISs and Environmental  Assessments) under
NEPA.  The Agency targets high impact federal  program areas, such as energy/transportation-
related projects and water resources projects.  The  program  also develops agency  policy and
technical guidance on issues related to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act,  the National Historic
Preservation Act and relevant Executive Orders (EOs).
45
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies to streamline, modernize, and
improve the NEPA process, by encouraging  early involvement in the project scoping process;
promoting methods and training for engaging federal, state, local  and tribal partners to develop
collaboration skills and successful collaborative agreements applicable to various stages of the
 ' For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa
                                          339

-------
NEPA process; developing training for the public on NEPA requirements and effective public
involvement; and integrating the NEPA process with environmental management systems. The
program will continue to use the web-based NEPAssist environmental assessment tool, which
assists federal,  state, local agencies and tribes with their NEPA responsibilities.

Work also will focus on a number of key areas such as reviewing and commenting on 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 expansion in Guam; flood control and port development; and management of
national forests and public  lands.   In  FY 2012, EPA will continue work  related to the
Appalachian  Coal  Mining  Interagency  Action  Plan,  including  the  Cumulative Impact
Assessment of Mountaintop Removal - Valley Fill Mining operations.  In addition, EPA will
continue its successful collaboration efforts with federal land management agencies in the west
to ensure the growing number  of oil and natural gas development projects in that area do not
cause significant adverse air quality impacts.

The American  Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased EPA's involvement with  other federal
agencies  (including  scoping  and  collaboration  efforts)  on federal projects that required
environmental  review by EPA pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and NEPA.  As of
December 31,  2010, appropriate NEPA reviews have been completed on nearly all (99.7%) of
EPA's ARRA projects/actions; EPA expects to be finished before FY 2012.

The NEPA Implementation program  also guides EPA's  own compliance with NEPA,  other
applicable statutes and EOs and related environmental justice requirements. The NEPA program
will continue to ensure environmental justice concerns are properly addressed in all actions
where EPA must comply with NEPA.  In FY 2012, at least 90 percent of EPA projects subject to
NEPA environmental assessment or EIS requirements are expected to result in no significant
environmental impact.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the strategic objective to improve  compliance under Goal 5.
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   *   (+$435.0) This increase reflects  the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-2.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (-$276.07 -0.7 FTE) This  change is a realignment of Mountain  Top Mining resources
       under NEPA to Mountain Top Mining efforts in other programs.  These resources are
       associated  with  Environmental  Impact Statements  for  policies and  approaches  to
       Appalachian coal mining.  These resources include $94.0 associated payroll for 0.7 FTE.
                                         340

-------
    •  (+$67.0/ +0.5 FTE) This increase reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
       will help the Agency better align resources, skills,  and Agency priorities to support the
       Agency's  energy-related  NEPA  reviews.  The  additional  resources  include  $67.0
       associated payroll for 0.5 FTE.

    •   (-$55.0) This decrease in  travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    *   (-$284.0) This reflects a decrease in resources for NEPA related activities.

    •  (-$9.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area
       Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

    •   (-$64.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CAA; NEPA; ASTCA; CWA; ESA; NHPA; AHPA; FCMA; FWCA; EO  12898.
                                           341

-------
Program Area: Geographic Programs
               342

-------
                                                                 Great Lakes Restoration
                                                       Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                         Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$475,000.0
$475,000.0
83.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$430,818.2
$430,818.2
86.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$475,000.0
$475,000.0
83.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$350,000.0
$350,000.0
84.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($125,000.0)
($125,000.0)
1.0
Program Project Description:

To  restore and protect this national treasure, the Obama Administration developed the Great
Lakes  Restoration  Initiative  (GLRI).   Led  by EPA,  the GLRI invests  in the  region's
environmental and public health through a  coordinated interagency process. As outlined in the
GLRI Action Plan46, this unprecedented program  focuses on five major restoration priorities: (1)
mitigating toxic substances and restoring Areas of Concern; (2) reducing the impact of invasive
species; (3) improving near-shore health and reducing non-point source pollution; (4) improving
habitat  and reducing species  loss; and  (5) improving  the  information,  engagement,  and
accountability in the  program  overall.   The GLRI  provides the  level of investment and the
interagency coordination required to successfully address  these five issues  across the Great
Lakes region.

The Great Lakes are the  largest system of surface freshwater on earth, containing 20 percent of
the  world's surface freshwater and accounting for 95 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, as required by the Great Lakes Water  Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
and the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA leads the  Interagency Task Force in the implementation
of a FY 2010 to FY 2014 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan (Action Plan), avoiding
unnecessary duplication of efforts.  Given today's fiscal constraints, such collaboration is even
more critical in maintaining progress on environmental priorities.

Pursuant to the Initiative, EPA works with its partners to select the best combination of programs
and projects for Great Lakes protection and restoration, using principles and criteria such as:

    •   Ability to achieve strategic and measurable environmental outcomes;
46 http://www.epa. gov/greatlakes/glri/
http://greatlakesrestoration.us/action/wp-content/uploads/glri actionplan.pdf
                                           343

-------
    •   Feasibility for prompt implementation, for achieving visible results soon, and the ability
       to leverage resources; and
    •   Opportunities for interagency/interorganizational coordination and collaboration.

GLRI funds are used to strategically implement both federal projects and projects with states,
tribes, municipalities, universities, and other organizations. Projects and activities pursuant to the
Initiative will be at multiple scales (local, lake-wide, and basin-wide).  (For EPA, this means that
these funds will not be  directed toward water infrastructure programs that are addressed under
the Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.) GLRI funds are distributed
by  the EPA  and are meant to supplement base funding for federal agencies'  Great Lakes
activities. The other principal agencies involved in the GLRI are: United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of
Housing  and Urban Development (HUD), Department of State (DOS), Department of Defense
(DOD-Army), Department of Interior (DOI),  and Department of Transportation (DOT).  In
addition to the GLRI, agencies have robust base Great Lakes programs that support ecosystem
restoration.

Funding  will be distributed directly by EPA and  through the transfer of funds to other  federal
agencies  for subsequent use and distribution. Grants will generally  be  issued competitively.
Agencies are expected to maintain their base level47 of Great Lakes activities and to identify new
activities and  projects that  will support  the Initiative's environmental  outcomes. EPA  uses
adaptive  management to make necessary Initiative program adjustments at appropriate times to
maximize results.  Priority-setting, coordination, and oversight are done through  efforts of the
Interagency Task Force.  Transparency and  accountability are priorities of the Initiative.  EPA
also will ensure appropriate coordination  with  Canada as required by the Great  Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.

FY 2012 Activities  and Performance Plan:

In its third year, the GLRI will support programs and projects strategically chosen to target the
most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem through direct program
implementation by EPA and Interagency  Task  Force members. This  will be accomplished by
issuing grants  and  other  agreements  to  states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and other
organizations.  Guided by the GLRI Action Plan, agencies  are shifting efforts for a stronger
emphasis on implementation actions and  results in the Initiative's focus  areas. Programs and
projects expected to be  initiated in FY 2012 will  be selected via a planning process conducted
through the Great Lakes  Interagency  Task  Force.   This process includes competitive grant
programs to implement  the Initiative by funding states, tribes, and other partners.  Interagency
Task Force members will  issue requests for proposals as soon as possible so some grants could
be undertaken during the 2012 field season.  Key activities expected to advance environmental
progress within each of the Initiative's focus areas are described below.
47 As a starting point for identifying their base, Agencies were asked to use the March 2008 OMB Great Lakes Restoration
Crosscut Report to Congress.
                                           344

-------
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern:

Persistent toxic substances, such as mercury and PCBs, are still present in the Great Lakes at
levels that warrant fish consumption advisories in all five lakes.  Thirty U.S. and binational Great
Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) remain degraded with an estimated 38.9 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments (as of September 2010). Ongoing sources of persistent toxic substances
to the Great  Lakes include  releases  from contaminated bottom sediments,  industrial  and
municipal point sources; nonpoint sources including  atmospheric  deposition, agricultural and
urban runoff,  contaminated  groundwater; and cycling of the chemicals  within  the  lakes.
Chemicals of emerging concern  may pose  ecosystem  health threats  and must be  better
understood with respect to their hazards and routes of exposure, so that effective responses can
be implemented in a timely fashion.
                                           Great Lakes Areas of Concern
                                                                       River
                                                              XEighteenmile Creek
                                                              Buffalo
                                        St. Clair
                                 Kalamazoo
                                 River     Cllnton R™
                                       Detroit R
                                   Calumet Rouge
                                       River
                                                                         • U.S. AOCs
                                                                         O Binational AOCs

                                                                         • Canadian AOCs
                                                                         A Areas in Recovery
                                                                           Delisted Canadian AOCi
                                                                               1 1 R
Principal  actions  proposed to  protect the  Great Lakes  from  toxic  substances,  clean  up
contaminated sediments, and restore AOCs include:

•  AOC Restoration. EPA will issue grants to states and other stakeholders to fund projects in
   the AOCs to restore beneficial use impairments (BUI) (26 BUIs out of a universe of 261  are
   expected to have been restored through FY 2012).   Through the Great Lakes Legacy Act,
   three to five sediment remediation projects will commence and will be supplemented with
                                           345

-------
   strategic navigational channel dredging by  the US Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE),
   habitat enhancements by US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), and Brownfield restoration and
   green infrastructure developments by the US Forest Service (USFS).  FY 2012 funding of
   Legacy Act projects is  expected over time  to result in remediation of over 400  hundred
   thousand cubic yards of contaminated sediments and contribute to delisting of 1-2 AOCs.
                       Cumulative Volume of Sediment Remediated
                         via the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program
                                 (As of January 2011)
           2,000,000

           1,800,000

           1,600,000

           1,400,000

           1,200,000 -
           In
            ,000,000
           5 800,000
           3
           •^600,000
           E
           •§ 400,000
            200,000 -
                 0
                    2004   2005  2006  2007  2008  2009   2010   2011   2012
                                             Calendar Year

•  Collections.  EPA will assist states, tribes, and local governments in the removal of PCB
   ballasts from schools. EPA will report results of collections of e-waste and pharmaceutical
   waste in the Great Lakes basin.

•  Human Health/Safe Fish  Consumption. EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
   Disease Registry (ATSDR) will continue to work with states and tribes to enhance and
   improve existing state/tribal fish consumption advisory programs.  Long-term results are
   expected to include measurable declines in mercury blood levels.

•  Total Maximum Daily Loads  (TMDLs).  EPA will award contracts to support EPA and
   state efforts to develop and implement toxic TMDLs  within the Great  Lakes Basin.   The
   TMDLs will define the extent of toxic contamination, including mercury, PCBs, dioxin and
   mirex throughout the basin. EPA will continue to support Michigan and New York's efforts
   to define the  extent of mercury, PCB,  dioxin,  and/or mirex  pollution,  and its potential
   sources, in up to 200  impaired Great Lakes sub watersheds.  Long-term results are expected to
   include TMDLs addressing up to 200 impaired watersheds, which identify pollutant loading
   capacities to guide pollutant reduction efforts in support of plans for  restoring polluted
   watersheds.
                                          346

-------
•  Early Warning  System  to  Detect New  Toxic  Threats.    To  inform management
   interventions in a timely fashion, federal agencies, including EPA, NOAA, USFWS, the US
   Geological  Survey  (USGS),  the  Agency for  Toxic  Substances  and  Disease Registry
   (ATSDR), and the National Park Service (NFS) will continue to implement an early warning
   system to detect new toxic threats to the Great Lakes utilizing enhanced monitoring programs
   for Great Lakes fish, birds,  mussels, and human biomonitoring,  as well as  sediments,
   tributary source loads, and air deposition studies.  Agencies also will assess toxicant effects
   on food web dynamics and ecological health for key  aquatic communities such as lake
   sturgeon and benthic invertebrates.

Invasive Species.
Timeline of Aquatic Invasive Species in the Great Lakes
1800's
Purple
loosestrife
introduced
Into North
America;
Sea Lamprey
Observed In
Lake Ontario


1800-1
1921
1959
1988 1994
St. Lawrence Zebra mussels Asian carp
Seaway opens. Identified In (blgheadand
allowing Lake St. Clair silver) escaped
ocean-going
vessels access
to the Great
Lakes


960 1980'S
1982
Sea lamprey Spiny
expand Into the water flea
upper Great detected in Lake
Lakes due to Ontario
from aqua culture
ponds Into the
lower Mississippi
River due to floods


1990's
1900 1
2002 2006 2010
Asian carp Bloody red Use of
discovered shrimp eDNA
50 miles torn detected testing shows
Lake Michigan inMuskegon, that Asian
In the Illinois Rr*sr Michigan Cam are
and 21 miles
downstream of the
electrical dispersal
barrier

1
2000
198 2003
Round goby first Fishhook waterflea The North
reported In St. (Ceropoog/s pengol] America strain
Clalr Rrver Identified In Lake of the Viral
Ontario Hemorrhagic
alteration to the
Wetland Canal



Septicemia (VMS)
virus found In
Lake St. Clair
likely within
Chicago Area
Waterway
System
1
-2010
2009
Asian carp
found seven
miles
downstream
of the
electrical
dispersal
barrier
Progress toward restoring the Great Lakes has been significantly undermined by the effects of
non-native invasive species. Over 180 non-native species now exist in the Great Lakes. The most
invasive of these  propagate  and spread,  ultimately degrading habitat, out-competing native
species, and short-circuiting food webs. New invasive species (such as the Asian Carp, which is
poised to invade the system) can be  introduced into the Great Lakes  region through various
pathways, including: commercial shipping, canals and waterways, trade of live organisms,  and
activities of recreational and resource users.  The Great Lakes are the aquatic gateway to most of
the interior United  States. Once invasive species establish a foothold in the Great Lakes, they are
virtually impossible to eradicate and  have the  potential to spread to much  of the rest of the
country; controlling species in the Great Lakes will slow or eliminate the spread to other regions.
Thus, invasive species  must be  controlled to maintain the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem
and to reduce risk to the interior U.S. It is expected that in FY 2012 much of the necessary Asian
carp work will be carried out through agencies base budgets.

Principal actions proposed to prevent new introductions of non-native invasive species in the
Great Lakes basin  and stop the further spread of invasives within and  out of the Great Lakes
basin include:
                                          347

-------
Prevention.  The Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (DOT-MARAD)
the U.S. Coast Guard, and EPA will fund the further development of up to three ballast water
treatment systems for use in freshwater ecosystems by supporting the use of laboratory, land-
based, and ship-board testing and coordination with  the maritime industry.  Refinement of
sampling methodologies for treated ballast water also will continue.  USFWS will deploy
portable boat washing units to limit the spread of invasive species by recreational boaters.

Early Detection and Control.  EPA and USFWS will continue the targeted implementation
of monitoring surveys that will detect new invaders in Great Lakes locations and develop the
case studies needed for the development of a basinwide early detection program.  USFWS
will support on-the-ground implementation  of Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plans
for each  Great Lake state, including three  rapid response exercises/actions to demonstrate
and test multi-agency response capabilities. USDA-National Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) will work directly with agricultural producers to implement conservation practices
that  reduce  terrestrial  invasive species on approximately  800  acres.  USFS will help
municipalities and tribes anticipate and address the impacts of Emerald Ash Borer. The Great
Lakes Fishery Commission  (GLFC) will  advance sea  lamprey control methods using
pheromones and telemetry, ensuring that such implementation would not reduce existing sea
lamprey control efforts.  ACE will enhance the use of barriers to further reduce Sea Lamprey
populations. Competitive grant funding from EPA will support agencies, local communities,
and organizations'  actions to implement  on-the-ground control  efforts on approximately
1,800  additional acres  in FY 2012,  and enhance  the development  of new  control
technologies.

 What is the "Nearshore"?
 The aquatic nearshore can be considered to begin at the shoreline and extend offshore to the depth at
 which the warm surface waters typically reach the bottom in early fall, generally 20m - 30m deep, and
 terrestrial nearshore areas range from narrow beaches to inland features influenced by Great Lakes
 processes.
                Lake Superior

       ',^/ ^ '/"*.
                                     '.  \
                        s
                     I-1    \
         Legend
        Nearshore waters  vty"                               o  100 200 Km
                                       348

-------
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution. Great Lakes nearshore water quality has
become degraded,  as evidenced by  eutrophication resulting from excessive nutrients; harmful
algal blooms; the green algae Cladophora washing ashore to make unsightly, odiferous rotting
mats on  beaches;  outbreaks of avian botulism; and advisories at swimming beaches.    The
environmental stressors causing these problems include excessive nutrient loadings from both
point and nonpoint sources; bacteria and other pathogens  responsible for beach closures and
outbreaks of botulism; shoreline development and hardening, which disrupt habitat and alter
nutrient and contaminant runoff; and agricultural practices that increase nutrient and sediment
loadings.  Nonpoint sources are now the primary  contributors of many pollutants, but control
strategies to date have been inadequate to deliver the degree of stream  and lake restoration
necessary for the protection and maintenance of the Great Lakes. However, implementation of
agricultural or other watershed best management practices can have multiple benefits, including
simultaneous reductions in runoff of soils, nutrients, and pesticides.

Principal actions proposed to  reduce nonpoint source pollution to  levels that do not impair
nearshore Great  Lakes waters,  and to restore and preserve the health of Great Lakes  nearshore
areas, include:

•  Identify and Remediate Sources of Impairments to Nearshore Waters. To contribute to
   the reduction  or elimination of the number  and severity  of  incidences  of ecosystem
   disruptions, including  Cladophera growth, harmful  algal blooms (HABs),  botulism, and
   other issues associated with eutrophi cation, NRCS, USFS, USAGE, National Park Service
   (NFS), USGS, NOAA, and EPA will collaborate to: understand linkages between nearshore
   impairments  and their causal agents; enhance  or implement practices  to reduce the causal
   agents, including the  export  of  nutrients  and  soils to the nearshore waters; establish and
   implement total maximum daily loads  (TMDLs) for phosphorus and other  non-toxic
   pollutants; and  evaluate tributary transport of sediments and nutrients.

•  Improve Public Health Protection  at  Beaches. To assist local health officials in better
   protecting beach-goers, NOAA, USGS, and EPA will collaborate  with state, local and tribal
   governments to: remediate identified sources of pollution or bacteria at beaches; increase the
   effectiveness of monitoring for pathogens; model environmental conditions likely to result in
   elevated levels  of bacteria; and enhance communications to the public about daily swimming
   conditions.

•  Place-Based Watershed Restoration.  NRCS,  USFS, USAGE, NFS, and EPA, in  close
   collaboration with state programs, will address high priority watersheds, including Fox River,
   Saginaw River, Maumee River,  St. Louis River, and the Genessee  River, to:  strategically
   target where  on-the-ground actions can be most  effective; provide supplemental funding to
   enhance existing conservation programs and management procedures; implement  actions to
   control nonpoint source runoff, erosion and sedimentation or to otherwise improve conditions
   on  a watershed scale; protect forest ecosystem services; and foster green infrastructure
   projects, especially for stormwater management.
                                          349

-------
   Generate Critical  Information for Protecting Nearshore Health.   EPA,  NFS, USFS,
   USGS,  and NOAA will collaborate to:  assess the status  and trends  of nearshore water
   conditions,  tributaries  and  groundwater;  implement  indicators of  land  use change,
   agricultural  lands, and  aquatic nearshore conditions;  identify  endpoints or interim target
   levels that reflect watershed stressors; facilitate "green" operation of marinas  and evaluate
   potential  contributions  to  nearshore  impairments;  and  develop education and  outreach
   programs to increase awareness and understanding of various Great Lakes issues.
                      Sediment Loading in the Great Lakes Basin
                             as calculated by HIT I.RUSLE ' SEDMOD)
                                          HUC8 sediment loading rate (tons/acre) (qualities)
                                              0 004 - 0 025
                                              0 026 - 0 050
Habitat and Wildlife. A multitude  of threats affect  the health of Great Lakes habitats and
wildlife. Habitat destruction and degradation due to development; competition  from invasive
species; the alteration of natural lake level fluctuations and flow regimes from dams and other
control structures; toxic compounds from urban development, poor land management practices
and non-point sources; and, habitat fragmentation have impacted habitat and wildlife. This has
led to  an  altered food web,  a loss of biodiversity, and  poorly functioning ecosystems. The
principal actions proposed to protect and restore Great Lakes habitat and wildlife include:

•  Protecting and  Restoring Native  Species and Habitats Agencies  will share data and
   management priorities  as  well as implement  protection and restoration actions to enhance
   native  species and habitats. Federal agencies (USAGE, Bureau of Indian Affairs—BIA, EPA,
   Federal Highway Administration-FHWA, FWS,  GLFC, NOAA, NFS, NRCS,  USFS, USGS,
                                          350

-------
   USDA-Animal and  Plant Health  Inspection Service-APHIS) will  continue  to  implement
   projects  directly  and through grants and  other agreements to reduce sedimentation and
   nutrient inputs, restore natural hydrological regimes, improve water  quality, and protect and
   restore habitats including Great Lakes islands,  beaches, sand dunes, and other coastal and
   upland habitats. Long term results will include restoration and  protection of 7,500 acres of
   wetlands  and  associated uplands and  coastal,  upland,  and island habitats;  improved
   ecosystem processes and functions; and, enhanced critical habitat for  native species.

•  Improving Aquatic  Ecosystem Resiliency. USFS, FWS,  USGS, USAGE, and NPS will
   begin implementation of projects directly and through grants and other agreements to remove
   large woody debris in floodplains and streams, replace barrier culverts to restore fish passage
   and stream/river connectivity, and restore forested edges in riparian areas. Long term results
   will include benefits to populations of keystone species such as lake sturgeon, brook trout
   and migratory birds;  removal of 50 fish passage barriers; and restoration of 500 stream  miles
   for fish passage and stabilization of stream banks.

•  Managing Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species. FWS,  USFS, and USGS will begin
   implementation of projects directly and through grants and other agreements to benefit rare,
   threatened and endangered Great Lakes species,  focusing  on actions  identified in species
   recovery and management plans. Long term results are expected to include  progress toward
   restoration  of populations of targeted  species and fisheries.  BIA will issue  grants and
   partnership  agreements  to tribal organizations for projects to protect  and  restore  tribal
   wetlands and culturally significant species such as wild rice.

•  Tracking Progress  on Coastal Wetlands Restoration.  EPA, with partners, will collect
   data for  birds, amphibians, fish, invertebrates,  plants, wetland extent  and  type, and water
   chemistry in 20 percent of US coastal wetlands and provide summary information to decision
   makers as part of a second year of coastal wetland monitoring. A cooperative agreement with
   a consortium of  12  universities, states, and agencies  is producing the first comprehensive
   baseline of the health of U.S.  Great Lakes coastal wetlands.

Accountability, Education, Monitoring,  Evaluation,  Communication, and Partnerships.
Oversight and coordination are critical  to the success of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as
are a comprehensive and efficient accountability  system  and establishment  of well-defined
metrics to track progress.  Also critical  are activities to fill gaps in baselines,  measure and
monitor key indicators of ecosystem function, evaluate restoration progress, and provide decision
makers with the information they need.   This information needs to be  based on  best available
science, and compiled and communicated.  Outreach, education, and partnerships are also crucial
in the effort to restore the Great Lakes. All of these elements are needed for informed decisions
and wise investments for results. Principal efforts  in order to enhance information for decision
making include:

•  Implement Great Lakes Restoration Accountability  System.  EPA will implement and
   refine the transparency and accountability system for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
   including easy access to information and linkages to planning, budgeting, grant offering, and
   results.
                                           351

-------
•  Implement Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). With and through the LaMPs, partner
   agencies will implement LaMP programs and projects, using public forums to assist with the
   transfer and dissemination of information.

•  Measure and  Evaluate the  Health of the  Great Lakes Ecosystem  using the Best
   Available  Science. Through direct program implementation, grants and other agreements,
   federal  agencies will enhance  existing  programs that  measure  and assess  the physical,
   biological,  and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes, including the connecting channels.
   EPA in coordination with other federal and state agencies will establish and implement a
   statistically valid  assessment,  using a  probability-based design, of  Great  Lakes water
   resources,  including the  nearshore environment that coincides with intensive coordinated
   science and monitoring efforts for the lakes.  EPA and USGS will continue to advance
   development and implementation of science-based indicators to better assess and provide a
   better  measure of  accountability of actions to improve the health of the  Great Lakes
   ecosystem.   EPA  will  continue to implement the  Coordinated Science and Monitoring
   Initiative with Environment Canada to address lake-specific science and monitoring needs in
   Lake Huron in 2012, followed by Lakes Ontario, Erie, Michigan, and Superior in consecutive
   years.  EPA  and USGS will take steps to improve  infrastructure for uniform data quality
   management  and real time information access.  NOAA, USEPA, USGS, USFWS, NPS, and
   DOT will implement a coordinated interagency  approach for increasing ecosystem resiliency
   pertaining  to climate change impacts.  NOAA, USGS,  and EPA will also  work closely
   together to enhance ecosystem and watershed predictive capabilities providing  the necessary
   link between  science and management.

•  Support Great Lakes Restoration Education. EPA and NOAA will  support Great Lakes
   education  and  outreach, including  the incorporation  of Great  Lakes  protection  and
   stewardship  criteria into education  curricula.   EPA and NOAA will foster  additional
   engagement and communication of stewardship  principles.

•  Support Partnerships.   EPA will lead and support coordination and collaboration among
   Great Lakes  partners to ensure  that Initiative actions, projects,  and programs are efficient,
   effective, and supportive  of the US- Canada GLWQA. The Department  of State will support
   the GLWQA through binational studies on cooperative efforts with Canadian partners on
   issues of binational importance.  Partnerships will be advanced and resources and capabilities
   leveraged through  existing  collaborative efforts such as the Great Lakes Interagency Task
   Force and its Regional Working Group, the US-Canada Binational Executive Committee, the
   State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference,  the US-Canada Great Lakes Binational Toxics
   Strategy, Lakewide Management Plans, the Coordinated  Science Monitoring  Initiative and
   Great Lakes Fisheries management.

EPA has led the Interagency Task Force in development of provisional funding allocations for
member agencies. Final funding allocations will be informed by experience with  FY 2010 and
FY 2011 funding and the need  for adjustments to Great Lakes priorities. One factor in the need
for adjustments will be the extent to which the  priority of keeping Asian Carp out of the Great
Lakes has been incorporated in  agency base budgets. EPA, following consultation with members
                                          352

-------
of the Interagency Task Force, will select the programs and projects for funding.  Provisional
allocations for the respective focus areas are:
Summary of Proposed FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012 Provisional Allocations by Focus Areas
(Dollars in Thousands)
Focus Area
Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern
Invasive Species
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation,
Communication, and Partnerships

FY10
$146,946
$60,265
$97,331
$105,262
$65,196
$475,000
FY11
$101,364
$43,303
$54,402
$60,377
$40,554
$300,000
FY12
$117,000
$56,000
$72,000
$70,000
$35,000
$350,000
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(626) Number of Areas
of Concern in the Great
Lakes where all
management actions
necessary for delisting
have been
implemented
(cumulative).
FY 2010
Target



1



FY 2010
Actual



1



FY2011
CR
Target



1



FY 2012
Target



3



Units



AOCs



Measure
Type




Output



Measure
(629) Number of
multi-agency rapid
response plans
established, mock
exercises to practice
responses carried out
under those plans,
and/or actual response
actions (cumulative).
FY 2010
Target




4



FY 2010
Actual








FY2011
CR
Target




4



FY 2012
Target




10



Units



Number
Responses/Plans



Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(635) Number of acres
of coastal, upland, and
island habitats
protected, restored and
enhanced (cumulative).
FY 2010
Target
15,000
FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target
15,000
FY 2012
Target
20,000
Units
Acres
                                          353

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(433) Improve the
overall ecosystem
health of the Great
Lakes by preventing
water pollution and
protecting aquatic
systems (using a 40-
point scale.)
FY 2010
Target



No Target
Established



FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target



23.4



FY 2012
Target



23.9



Units



Scale




Measure
Type


Outcome


Measure
(606) Cubic yards of
contaminated sediment
remediated (cumulative
from 1997) in the
Great Lakes.

FY 2010
Target


6.3


FY 2010
Actual


7.3

FY2011
CR
Target


8


FY 2012
Target


8.7


Units

Cubic Ycirds
(million)


Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(620) Cumulative
percentage decline for
the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs
in whole lake trout and
walleye samples.

FY 2010
Target


10



FY 2010
Actual


43


FY2011
CR
Target


37



FY 2012
Target


40



Units


Percent
Decline


Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(625) Number of
Beneficial Use
Impairments removed
within Areas of
Concern.
FY 2010
Target
20
FY 2010
Actual
12
FY2011
CR
Target
26
FY 2012
Target
31
Units
BUIs
Removed

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(630) Five-year
average annual
loadings of soluble
reactive phosphorus
(metric tons per year)

FY 2010
Target

0


FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target

0


FY 2012
Target

0.5


Units

Average
Loadings

354

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
from tributaries
draining targeted
watersheds.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units


Measure
Type

Efficiency


Measure
(623) Cost per cubic
yard of contaminated
sediments remediated
(cumulative).

FY 2010
Target

200


FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target

200


FY 2012
Target

200


Units

Dollars/Cubic
Yard

Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(637) Percent of days
of the beach season
that the Great Lakes
beaches monitored by
state beach safety
programs are open and
safe for swimming.
FY 2010
Target







FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target







FY 2012
Target



94



Units



Percent Days



Measure
Type

Output

Measure
(627) Number of non-
native invasive species
newly detected in the
Great Lakes
ecosystem.
FY 2010
Target

1.1

FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target

1.0

FY 2012
Target

1.0

Units

Number of
Species


Measure
Type

Output



Measure
(628) Acres managed
for populations of
invasive species
controlled to a target
level (cumulative).

FY 2010
Target

1,000



FY 2010
Actual




FY2011
CR
Target

1,500



FY 2012
Target

2,600



Units

Number of
Acres


355

-------
Measure
Type


Output


Measure
(632) Acres in Great
Lakes watershed with
USDA conservation
practices implemented
to reduce erosion,
nutrients, and/or
pesticide loading.
FY 2010
Target


2%
increase


FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target


2%
increase


FY 2012
Target


807
/O
increase


Units


Percent
(Acres)


Measure
Type


Output


Measure
(633) Percent of
populations of native
aquatic non-threatened
and non-endangered
species self-sustaining
in the wild
(cumulative.)
FY 2010
Target


33%;
48/147


FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target


33%;
48/147


FY 2012
Target


35%;
51/147


Units


Number of
Species



Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(634) Number of acres
of wetlands and
wetland-associated
uplands protected,
restored and enhanced
(cumulative).

FY 2010
Target


5,000



FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target


5,000



FY 2012
Target


7,500



Units


Acres


Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(636) Number of
species delisted due to
recovery.
FY 2010
Target
0
FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target
0
FY 2012
Target
1
Units
Species
EPA will track and report on progress under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan
through annual reporting on the 28 measures in the Action Plan.  EPA also will report on the
following subset of those measures, including reporting progress in each of the focus areas of the
Initiative, through the federal planning and budget process.

Much has been accomplished under the GLRI since the targets were set, including issuing
Interagency Agreements with all key federal agencies; addressing the Asian Carp emergency in
the Great Lakes; issuing and starting numerous projects; and issuing a Request for Proposals by
which over $160 million in grants were selected. GLRI Action Plan targets were ambitious, yet
                                          356

-------
achievable. However, reaching the GLRI Action Plan targets for FY 2011 and FY 2012 is
dependent upon many moving pieces falling into place.  There have been several contributing
factors to delays in hitting Action Plan targets, including applicants for Legacy Act projects have
not secured the matching funds required by statute, so fewer new Legacy Act projects
commenced than anticipated;

However, EPA is working to address these challenges.  To accelerate AOC remediation, EPA
will work to generate match funding from industry.  EPA will continue to coordinate with
Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs to explore betterment opportunities, and to
seek to "dovetail" regulatory and enforcement actions with Legacy Act projects.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
    •   (-$143.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs  for existing FTE.

    •   (-$124,760.0) Decreased funding allows EPA and partner agencies to address the most
       important Great Lakes priorities in difficult economic times; however, there will be
       impacts to each of the GLRI Focus Areas. Funding will be targeted to minimize the
       impact of the reduction to on-the-ground and in-the-water actions, such as restoration of
       beneficial uses in Areas of Concern, including Great Lakes Legacy Act projects;
       nearshore work and habitat restoration in support of delistings of AOCs; and
       development and implementation of ballast water treatment and other efforts to prevent
       invasive species from entering the Great Lakes.

    •   (+1.0 FTE) The FTE increase will support management and oversight of grants and
       contracts necessary for implementation of the program.

    •   (-$97.0) This reflects a reduction in travel.

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  Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA);  1987 GLWQA; 1987 Montreal Protocol  on Ozone Depleting
Substances; 1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy.
EPA is again  proposing the statutory language pertaining to administrative provisions which was
included in the FY  2010  Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.   Among other things, the language would give EPA independent statutory
interagency agreement authority and implementing grant authority in support of the Initiative and
the Great Lakes  Water Quality Agreement, and additional sediment remediation authority.
Continuation  of this authority is important to the success of the Initiative. Agencies are expected
to use numerous other statutory authorities, intrinsic to  their  programs, in  support of  the
Initiative.
                                          357

-------
                                                 Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                        Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
48.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$53,192.7
$53,192.7
42.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
48.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$67,350.0
$67,350.0
51.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$17,350.0
$17,350.0
2.6
Program Project Description:

In May 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13508 to focus work to restore the
Chesapeake Bay.  The purpose of the  Executive Order is "to protect and restore the health,
heritage,  natural resources, and social  and economic value of the  nation's largest estuarine
ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed."  It also declared the Bay a "national
treasure" while simultaneously acknowledging that the past 25 years had not seen sufficient
progress in restoring the health of the Bay and its watershed. The Executive Order also tasked a
team of federal agencies to draft a way forward for protection and restoration of the Chesapeake
watershed.  This team—the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay—is
chaired by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and includes senior
representatives from  the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security,
Interior and Transportation.

The FLC developed the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed,
which was released in May 2010. The Strategy is organized around four "Goal Areas" of work:
1) Restore Water Quality; 2) Restore Habitat;  3) Sustain Fish and Wildlife; and 4) Conserve
Land and Increase Public Access,  as well  as  four Supporting Strategies:   1) Expand citizen
stewardship;  2)  Develop environmental markets; 3)  Respond to climate  change;  and 4)
Strengthen science.  The  goals laid out  in the Strategy represent objectives to be accomplished
through 2025 by the federal government, working closely with state, local, and nongovernmental
partners.   The Administration is committed to implementing the Strategy  and restoring this
magnificent ecosystem.

Actions for which EPA  is primarily responsible under the EO strategy include, but  are not
limited to:

•  Providing expectations for and directing the development of watershed implementation plans
   by the six Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia (D.C.);
                                          358

-------
•  Establishing evaluation protocols for the watershed implementation  plans  for  achieving
   loading reduction targets under the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to
   achieve progress toward water quality goals;

•  Maintaining a Compliance and  Enforcement  Strategy for the Bay watershed  placing a
   stronger emphasis on compliance with existing laws;

•  Undertaking new rulemakings to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to the Chesapeake
   Bay from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, new or expanding sources of
   nutrient and/or sediment, and other pollutant sources as EPA deems necessary;

•  Establishing an enhanced partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
   accelerate  the adoption of  conservation  practices by  agricultural interests in  the  Bay
   watershed; and

•  Working with federal partners to expand the understanding of the toxic contaminant problem
   in the Bay and its watershed and developing contaminant reduction outcomes and strategies.

In May 2009, the Chesapeake Executive Council pledged to put in place by 2025 all practices
necessary to restore the Bay's water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and
chlorophyll. Part of this new strategy to accelerate the pace of Bay restoration and become more
accountable included the setting  of specific two-year milestones for each jurisdiction to reduce
pollution to the Bay and its rivers. These milestones will contain "contingencies"  and be subject
to ongoing EPA oversight and backstopping actions where they fall short.

On December 29, 2009, EPA sent a letter to the Chesapeake Bay states that outlined the details
of a new accountability framework  and the potential  federal actions for inadequate plans  or
failure to  meet the performance  milestones established.  The federal actions letter48 noted that
EPA may exercise  its discretionary  authority to take  any or all  of the following actions  as
necessary:

   •   Expand the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage
       to currently unregulated sources;

   •   Object to NPDES permits and increase program oversight;

   •   Require net improvement offsets;

   •   Establish finer scale wasteload and load allocations in the Bay TMDL;

   •   Require additional reductions of loadings from point sources;

   •   Increase and target federal enforcement and compliance assurance in the watershed;
 ! For additional information, please see http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/bay letter 1209.pdf


                                           359

-------
   •   Condition or redirect EPA grants based on demonstrated progress; and

   •   Promulgate local nutrient water quality standards.

On December 29,  2010,  EPA established the  Chesapeake Bay Total  Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), a historic and comprehensive "pollution diet" with rigorous accountability measures to
initiate sweeping actions to restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay and the region's streams,
creeks and rivers.  The TMDL is required under federal law and responds to consent decrees in
Virginia and Washington D.C. dating back to the late 1990s. It is also a keystone commitment of
the EO strategy.  The TMDL - the largest ever developed by EPA - includes pollution limits to
meet water quality standards in the Bay and its tidal rivers. The TMDL is designed to ensure that
all pollution control measures to  fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025,
with 60  percent of the actions  completed  by 2017.  The  TMDL is  supported  by  rigorous
accountability measures to ensure cleanup commitments are met, including short-and long-term
benchmarks, a tracking and accounting system for jurisdiction activities, and federal contingency
actions that can be employed if necessary to spur progress.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  EPA is requesting $67.3 million for  the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) which
includes  work under  Executive  Order 13508.  Work  under EO 13508  can be categorized
according to the Goal Areas and Supporting Strategies identified in the EO Strategy. Most of
EPA's direct efforts center around the first goal and more detail is provided in the subsequent
narratives.

   1.  Restore Clean Water:

       •   EPA implementation of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL  for nitrogen, phosphorus, and
          sediment to meet water quality standards;

       •   EPA funding  of Chesapeake  Bay  Regulatory and  Accountability Program and
          Implementation Grants;

       •   EPA, U.S.  Department of the  Interior (DOI) / National  Oceanic and Atmospheric
          Administration  (NOAA)  research  and  partnerships  to  address  toxic pollutant
          contamination in the Bay; and

       •   EPA and U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) partnership to develop  suites of
          conservation practices to improve  water quality and targeting of technical and
          financial  assistance in high-priority watersheds.

   2.  Recover Habitat:

       •   EPA, U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey  (USGS),
          NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Natural Resources Conservation
                                          360

-------
          Service (NRCS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) work to strengthen science support
          for habitat restoration;

       •  USFWS, NOAA, USGS; NRCS,  Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA),  and
          National  Park Service (NFS) partnership  to  restore  and enhance wetlands and to
          conduct supporting research;

       •  USD A, USFS, and USFWS partnership to restore riparian forest buffers; and

       •  USFWS, NOAA, and NRCS work to restore historical  fish migratory routes.

   3.   Sustain Fish and Wildlife:

       •  NOAA and USAGE work to restore native oyster habitat and populations;

       •  NOAA work to rebuild the blue crab population target;

       •  USFWS, USFS, and NOAA work to restore brook trout, black duck, and other
          species; and

       •  NOAA,  USAGE,  USFWS,  USGS,  states,  and local organizations  partners to
          strengthen science support to sustain fish and wildlife.

   4.   Conserve Land and Increase Public Access:

       •  DOT, USD A, NOAA, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of
          Defense  (DOD),  states,  and  local agencies collaboration  on  the launch of  a
          Chesapeake Treasured Landscape Initiative;

       •  NFS, USFWS, USD A, NOAA, USGS, DOT, and U.S.  Department of Housing  and
          Urban Development (HUD) work on coordinated conservation actions; and

       •  Watershed-wide GIS-based land conservation targeting system.

The schedule for this work will be established in annual action plans  released by the FLC, the
first of which was released in September 2010. The success of this work will be documented in
annual progress reports released by the FLC,  the first of which will be released in early 2012.
EO 13508 requires publication of the annual action plans and progress reports by the FLC.

Highlights of EPA's Actions to Restore Clean Water

EPA's focus in FY 2012 will be to  continue to improve  the rate of progress in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed by  meeting the President's expectations as described in EO  13508, using the
Agency's  existing  statutory authority, implementing  the Chesapeake  Bay TMDL, developing
                                         361

-------
more rigorous regulations, providing  states with  the tools necessary for effective regulatory
implementation,  creating better tools for scientific analysis and accountability,  and supporting
regulatory compliance and enforcement.  The requested FY 2012 funding will allow EPA to
continue to provide state implementation and enforcement grants worth a total of $25.3 million
and to implement key initiatives under EO 13508, including: updating the TMDL and Watershed
Implementation Plans (WIPs)  as envisioned in  Phase II;   implementing the TMDL; assisting
states in their Phase II watershed plans and conducting  evaluations of them for reasonable
assurance; maintaining enhanced oversight of state permitting  and compliance actions for the
various  sectors;  developing new regulations  for  animal  feeding operations and  stormwater
discharges;  developing  a  publicly accessible  TMDL tracking  and  accountability system;
deploying technology to integrate discrete Bay data systems  and to  present  the  data in an
accessible  accountability  system  called  ChesapeakeSfatf;   implementing  a  Bay-specific
enforcement and compliance initiative; and moving forward on the Bay's challenges related to
toxic contaminants.

The  Chesapeake Bay  Program (CBP) partnership is using independent  program performance
evaluation  to  critically  review  components  of the CBP and  support enhanced "adaptive
management" efforts.  EPA also will join the states in establishing two-year milestones for the
outcomes outlined in the EO strategy.  The first set of two-year milestones is expected to be
released in FY 2012.

A centerpiece of EPA's FY 2012 activities is the  implementation of the nation's largest and most
complex TMDL for the entire  Chesapeake Bay  watershed.  A TMDL is  essentially a plan that
defines how much of a particular pollutant may be discharged into a particular waterbody while
allowing the waterbody  to meet its water quality standards and designated uses. EPA released
the final TMDL in December 2010.  Prior to that release, the Bay jurisdictions developed WIPs
that  included specific timelines for enhancing programs  and implementing  actions to reduce
pollution, with all  measures needed to reach the TMDL pollution load limits in place no  later
than 2025.   In FY 2011 and FY 2012, the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions will  be expected to
develop and implement second-generation WIPs that  define  how the  jurisdictions'  TMDL
allocations will be achieved, in part, through local  efforts.   EPA expects that by 2017, pollution
controls will be in place that should  result  in  approximately 60 percent of the  required
reductions.

To support the TMDL,  EPA will develop and initiate a tracking and accountability system to
ensure that the Bay jurisdictions are effectively implementing the  TMDL. EPA will support an
increase  of 35  sampling  sites  in the  Chesapeake Bay Program's  nontidal water-quality
monitoring network to better track TMDL progress.  The sampling sites  will provide better
measurements of nutrient and  sediment  load changes for  major  sources of pollution in more
localities.   EPA will  invest in bringing more  non-traditional  monitoring  partners, including
watershed organizations, permittees, and local  governments  - into the monitoring network,
increasing the data available to assess stream  and Bay health and responses to management
actions.

In FY  2012,  EPA will use its  technical and  scientific  analysis capabilities  to provide
implementation support  and guidance to the states  and thousands of local  governments that will
                                          362

-------
be instrumental in meeting the TMDLs allocations. EPA will assist the jurisdictions in making
scientifically  informed  determinations  of the  most  effective ways to  meet their TMDL
obligations that will provide  individually tailored  solutions.   Also, EPA is conducting
assessments of state  developed offset  and trading programs to ensure that they  meet the
expectations for such programs expressed in the TMDL. The refinement and implementation of
this program will continue in FY 2012 to aid in identifying cost-effective solutions for meeting
the TMDL waste load and load allocations throughout  the watershed. EPA's Air and  Radiation
program will work with Region 3 and the Chesapeake  Bay Program Office to analyze whether
additional reductions are needed to meet the air deposition load allocations.

In FY 2012, EPA also will continue the development and implementation of new regulations to
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.  EPA  will continue  work on  rulemakings  under the
Clean Water Act to reduce nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and sediment pollution  in the Bay from
concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater  discharges from  new and redeveloped
properties, new or expanded discharges, and other pollutant discharges as necessary.

EPA will use its resources to develop the scientific underpinnings of the new regulations, which
likely will include enhanced understanding  of the loads contributed by various pollution sources
in specific geographies.  EPA's Air and Radiation program is developing three rules that could
affect ambient air levels of NOx and, therefore, the deposition of nitrogen in the Chesapeake
Bay:  1)   a  replacement  rule   for  the  court-remanded Clean Air  Interstate Rule; 2) the
reconsideration of the ozone standard that was promulgated in 2008; and 3) a secondary standard
for oxides of nitrogen and sulfur.

EPA will  continue to support implementation of environmental market mechanisms as a means
of achieving the goals  of the  TMDL.  Environmental market approaches show promise for
encouraging innovation and investment in  conservation, improving accountability,  reducing
costs of restoration, expanding opportunities for landowners,  and creating new private incentives
for conservation and restoration.  The basic premise of an environmental  market is that an entity
that needs to reduce its effects on the environment can purchase  credits to offset an equivalent or
greater amount of environmental improvement.  The Bay TMDL establishes the expectation that
the Bay jurisdictions will expand or establish nutrient credit trading and offset programs to allow
development while continuing to reduce pollutant loads to the Bay and its tributaries.  EPA also
is participating in the federal  Environmental Markets Team, which includes more than 12
agencies   working together  to foster the  expansion of  water  quality  trading  and  other
environmental  markets.

To ensure that the states are  able to meet EPA's expectations under the TMDL  and new
rulemakings, EPA will continue and, in  some cases, expand its broad range of grant programs.
EPA will direct investments toward key local governments and watershed organizations based on
their ability to reduce nutrient  and sediment loads via key sectors such as development and
agriculture in urban and rural  areas.  Most significantly, EPA will increase funding for state
implementation and enforcement from $20.3 million to $25.3 million, including $5 million for
implementation of the jurisdictions' WIPs.  This additional funding will  be targeted toward
supporting activities at the local level to implement the WIPs. EPA has developed new guidance
for implementation grants that ensures a high level  of accountability for the use  of these
                                          363

-------
resources.   These grants are an  essential  part  of achieving  the  goals  established for the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.

EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program has established a high level of accountability and transparency.
The  next step in meeting  that commitment to program partners and  stakeholders is the
development of the Chesapeake Registry and Chesapeake^fatf.  The Chesapeake Registry gathers
project  and   resource  information  from  all  Bay  partners,  including non-governmental
organizations,  to track  partner  actions with current and expected  progress  against explicit
environmental measures and outcomes (i.e., restored water quality, aquatic habitat and fisheries,
healthy watersheds, and fostered  stewardship).  In FY 2012, EPA will work with key partners to
integrate their existing internal partner performance management data systems and refine the
Chesapeake Registry to better support state and federal implementation efforts.

ChesapeakeStat  is a  key element in  the next  generation of tools EPA  is  developing to
significantly enhance the accountability of program partners.  ChesapeakeStat  is a web based,
geo-enabled tool for performance-based interactive decision-making for all Bay partners.   The
system allows the public to  track progress and become informed and engaged in restoring the
Bay.  A key feature of Chesapeake^fatf is the ability to target resources and activities to ensure
that taxpayer dollars are used most effectively. ChesapeakeStat provides an interface for existing
discrete systems and a newly deployed enterprise data engine for the Chesapeake Bay.  In FY
2012, the Agency continue refining  and improving Chesapeake<5Yotf.

Ensuring that the regulated community complies with the appropriate regulations is an essential
responsibility for achieving the goals established for the Chesapeake  Bay and its watershed.  In
FY 2012, the continued implementation of the Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for the Bay
Watershed  will target sources of pollution impairing the Bay.  EPA's multi-year, multi-state
strategy combines the agency's water, air and waste enforcement authorities to address violations
of federal environmental laws resulting in nutrient, sediment and other pollution in the Bay.

More specifically, EPA's compliance and  enforcement actions will be focused  on the following
areas:

   •   Identify and address  industrial,  municipal, and agricultural  sources releasing significant
       amounts of pollutants in excess of the amounts allowed by the Clean Water Act (CWA),
       the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other  applicable environmental laws;

   •   Identify nutrient and sediment impaired sub-watersheds;

   •   Identify key  regulated business  sectors  that, when  in non-compliance with current
       applicable  environmental  regulations,  contribute  significant amounts  of nutrients,
       sediment and other pollutants to the Bay.  The key regulated sectors,  some of which are
       also National Enforcement Initiatives for EPA, are:

          o   Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO),

          o   Municipal and industrial wastewater facilities,
                                          364

-------
          o   Stormwater National  Pollution Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES)  point
              sources  including  Municipal  Separate  Storm  Sewer  System  (MS4s)  and
              Stormwater discharges from  construction  sites and  other  regulated  industrial
              facilities, and

          o   Air deposition sources of nitrogen regulated under the  CAA, including  power
              plants;

    •   Analyze the compliance records for facilities in the key regulated business sectors to target
       investigations and inspections;

    •   Investigate and  inspect  facilities  in the  key  regulated  business  sectors  and pursue
       appropriate enforcement actions to ensure compliance; and

    •   Identify appropriate opportunities for compliance and enforcement activities related to the
       CWA wetlands protection program,  federal facilities,  and Superfund  sites,  including
       remedial action and  removal sites, and Resource  Conservation  Recovery Act (RCRA)
       corrective action facilities.

In addition, enforcement resources will support the Agency's priority to restore the Chesapeake
Bay by providing information about wet weather sources of pollution.   This will result in an
increase in knowledge, use,  transparency,  and public access to data about wet weather sources
through: a) building an electronic reporting  module for getting non-major permit data into the
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES to pilot with states in the Chesapeake
Bay; b) building and  deploying  targeted tools to help  identify the most significant sources of
noncompliance  and  discharges  of pollutants most responsible  for  the impairment of this
important water body; and c) making all non-enforcement confidential data available, with easy-
to-use tools to aid in the public's ability to use and understand the data.

Work under this program project  supports the Agency's High Priority Performance Goal
(Priority Goal), addressing Chesapeake Bay water quality. A list of the Agency's Priority Goals
can be found in Appendix A. For a detailed description of the EPA's Priority Goals
(implementation strategy, measures and milestones) please visit  Performance.gov.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(cb6) Percent of goal
achieved for
implementing nitrogen
reduction actions to
achieve the final
TMDL allocations, as
measured through the
phase 5.3 watershed
model.
FY 2010
Target







FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target







FY 2012
Target



1



Units



Percent Goal
Achieved



                                           365

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome




Measure
(cb7) Percent of goal
achieved for
implementing
phosphorus reduction
actions to achieve final
TMDL allocations, as
measured through the
phase 5.3 watershed
model.
FY 2010
Target








FY 2010
Actual








FY2011
CR
Target








FY 2012
Target



1




Units



Percent Goal
Achieved



Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(cb8) Percent of goal
achieved for
implementing sediment
reduction actions to
achieve final TMDL
allocations, as
measured through the
phase 5.3 watershed
model.
FY 2010
Target







FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target







FY 2012
Target



1



Units



Percent Goal
Achieved



Measure
Type




Efficiency




Measure
(233) Total nitrogen
reduction practices
implementation
achieved as a result of
agricultural best
management practice
implementation per
million dollars to
implement agricultural
BMPs.
FY 2010
Target




48,134




FY 2010
Actual




n/a




FY2011
CR
Target




48,134




FY 2012
Target




49,660




Units




Pounds/$M




For FY 2012, EPA,  along with the other  agencies involved in responding to the President's
Executive Order, will  be working toward the  12 outcomes articulated in the EO  strategy
document. These outcomes relate to  the specific actions identified in strategy.  Shorter-term
goals are identified in the annual EO action plan and will be refined in the federal two-year
milestones to be released in 2012.
                                          366

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$5,000.0)  This reflects an increase to provide the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions with
       additional funding to implement their  watershed  implementation plans (WIP).  This
       funding will allow  the Bay jurisdictions  to  work more closely  with  their local
       governments  to  identify and implement actions necessary  to meet the nutrient and
       sediment reductions required under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.  This should allow the
       jurisdictions to meet the schedules identified in their WIPs and their two-year milestones.

    •   (+$10,747.0) This reflects an increase to implement the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the
       President's Executive Order  on  the  Chesapeake Bay,  enhance state nonpoint source
       programs  and EPA  Executive  Order enforcement  activities,  and support innovative
       nutrient and sediment removal projects.  These activities include a range of reporting and
       accountability initiatives, such as expanding the Chesapeake Bay monitoring  network,
       further development of Chesapeake^fatf, continued development of the Bay Tracking and
       Accountability System, and implementation of an enforcement and compliance assistance
       strategy designed specifically for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  This funding will also
       support EPA efforts under the President's Executive Order, including working  with
       dischargers to the Chesapeake Bay, including federal facilities and agricultural  interests,
       to reduce their pollutant discharges to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

    •   (+$50.0) This increase reflects additional travel to localities for WIP support.

    •   (-$580.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for  efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to  redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas.

    •   (+$2,133.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+5.0 FTE) This change reflects a conversion of non-payroll funding into FTE to support
       technical and legal expertise.

    •   (-2.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act (CWA), 33  U.S.C. 26 et seq. - Sections 1267 and 1313.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 85 et seq.
                                          367

-------
                                                Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
2.5
FY 2010
Actuals
$10,087.1
$10,087.1
1.9
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
2.5
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$4,847.0
$4,847.0
2.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($2,153.0)
($2,153.0)
-0.2
Program Project Description:

The development of the Interim Federal Action Plan ("Interim Plan") for the California Bay-
Delta in December 2009 signaled the federal government's  intent to protect and restore  this
critically important ecosystem - one that provides water to 25 million residents, sustains one of
the most productive agricultural sectors in the country, and until recently supported a commercial
and recreational fishing  industry that normally contributed  hundreds  of millions  of dollars
annually to the  California economy.   The Interim Plan contained four cross-cutting federal
priorities:   1) work in closer partnership with the State of California and local  authorities to
ensure smarter water use and restore healthy ecosystems; 2) encourage smarter supply and use of
Bay-Delta water; 3) work in a focused and expedited manner to address the degraded Bay-Delta
Ecosystem; and 4) help deliver drought relief services and ensure integrated Bay-Delta flood risk
management.

Improving water supply reliability and conservation of threatened and listed  species remains a
focal point of emphasis. The federal government is participating in the development of the Bay-
Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a primary feature of  federal and  state collaboration on water
supply and conservation.  In addition, over the past two years, the Obama Administration has
recognized that despite the careful planning for the BDCP, more immediate actions need to be
taken in order to address the California water crisis. The  Department of the Interior (Interior), for
example, has invested over $500 million dollars in major projects to improve California's water
infrastructure, including the construction of the Delta Mendota Intertie, the Red Bluff Diversion
Facility, Contra Costa fish screen, a large number of water reuse and water conservation projects,
and the safety of improvements at Folsom Dam.

Further, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A), National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
have undertaken a number of other activities to restore habitat, increase direct drought relief
assistance for agricultural producers, and improve water  quality. For example:

   •   American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funded projects to diversify
       wildlife refuge water supplies including a pilot project for several wildlife areas that are
                                          368

-------
       expected to yield over nine thousand acre-feet of water per year. Construction on these
       three projects is scheduled to be completed in summer 2011;

    •   In 2010, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) developed a $10 million
       special  Environmental  Quality Incentives Program  Drought  Initiative to  allow San
       Joaquin Valley agricultural producers the  opportunity  to fallow severely eroded fields,
       rehabilitate  springs for  stock water, and undertake other critically needed conservation
       measures;

    •   In an effort to assess the effectiveness of current water quality regulation in the Bay-Delta
       and its tributaries, EPA will soon issue an advance notice  of proposed rulemaking that
       will  focus  on water quality impacts to Bay-Delta aquatic  life from pollutants  such  as
       ammonia, selenium, pesticides, emerging contaminants and water quality factors (such as
       salinity and temperature) that restrict estuarine habitat and migratory areas; and

    •   The  Administration also plans to continue,  as  needed, water augmentation activities
       developed in FY 2010 to provide increased assurance of available water supply from the
       Central Valley Project (CVP).

The Department of the Interior and the Council on Environmental Quality co-chair the Federal
Leadership  Committee for the Bay-Delta.    Other member agencies are the Departments  of
Commerce,  Agriculture, the Army (Civil Works), and EPA.  Each of these Departments and their
agencies are responsible for commitments under the Interim Federal Action Plan.
EPA  has  a diverse  and active  history of working with state, federal  and other stakeholders
throughi
include:
throughout the entire estuary to protect water quality and ecosystem health.  Program priorities49
          Participation in federal  and state partnerships aimed at resolving the challenges of
          water quality, ecosystem health and water supplies;

          Water  quality  improvements through Total  Maximum  Daily  Loads  (TMDLs),
          National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System  (NPDES),  Nonpoint  Source
          Program, watershed plans and upgrading aging infrastructure;

          Support for the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (National  Estuary Program) and
          the  implementation  of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
          (CCMP);

          Protection and restoration of streams and wetlands and the reuse of dredge material;
          and
49 For more additional information on program activities see:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs^av_delta/strategicJ3lan/
http://resources.ca.gov/bdcp/. http://deltavision.ca.gov/. http://sfep.abag.ca.gov/
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=838eOa426684bOfeb8abf6b8e60cb326
                                            369

-------
       •  Predicting, mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts on water quality.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary program will focus on the following activities,
which support Goal 3 of the Interim Federal Action Plan — Addressing the Degraded Bay-Delta
Ecosystem:

       •  Provide scientific support for Bay-Delta restoration to improve the understanding of:

              o   The  causes  of decline  and  methods  for  reversing the decline  of pelagic
                 organisms in the Delta;

              o   Restoring the health of the San Joaquin River (San Joaquin River Restoration
                 Settlement Act, Public Law 111-11); and

              o   Pesticide and mercury pollutant loading.

       •  Participate  in   a  state/federal partnership to balance the competing water needs
          between  agriculture,  urban  uses and  the  environment, especially  the Agency
          commitments in the Interim Federal Action Plan of December 2009;

       •  Increase effectiveness of regulatory  programs to restore water quality and to protect
          wetlands and streams following up on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
          related to Bay Delta Estuary water quality issues issued in 2011;

       •  Continue  a  competitive grant program  to implement projects that improve water
          quality and restore habitat in San Francisco Bay watersheds;

       •  Strengthen ongoing implementation of  the  San Francisco  Estuary  Partnership's
          CCMP by supporting a new strategic plan. Encourage focus on reducing urban runoff
          impacts on  water  quality through watershed planning, Low Impact  Development
          (LID) and TMDL implementation;

       •  Support the California Water Boards in implementing their Bay Delta Strategic Plan,
          particularly reviewing/improving water quality standards;

       •  Continue efforts to support studies that focus  on preparing for the effects of climate
          change;

       •  Continue to support restoration of wetlands acreage; and

       •  Strengthen  monitoring to  assist  in  Clean  Water Act  reporting  and  TMDL
          implementation, particularly  aimed  at  establishing a  San  Joaquin  Regional
          Monitoring Program.
                                          370

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems
objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$8.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$2,005.0)  This reduces the FY 2010 congress!onally directed funding increase for the
       San Francisco Bay-Delta Program.

    •   (-$156.0) This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of  spending for  efficiencies  and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities  in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-0.2 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act (CWA).
                                           371

-------
                                                        Geographic Program: Puget Sound
                                                        Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                          Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                         Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
9.3
FY 2010
Actuals
$40,040.4
$40,040.4
8.5
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
9.3
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$19,289.0
$19,289.0
7.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($30,711.0)
($30,711.0)
-1.6
Program Project Description:

The Puget Sound Program  works to protect and restore the Puget  Sound, which has been
designated as an estuary of national  significance under the Clean Water Act National  Estuary
Program (NEP).  EPA efforts are focused on the following high priority environmental activities
consistent with the State of Washington's 2020 Puget Sound Action Agenda:

    •   Improving water quality and upgrading shellfish bed classifications;

    •   Managing stormwater by implementing effective local watershed protection plans;

     •   Reducing sources of toxics and nutrients;

     •   Restoring and protecting nearshore habitat; and

     •   Improving monitoring and science.

For more information, visit: http://www.psp.wa.gov/aa_action_agenda.php50

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  the Puget Sound  Program will accelerate improvements to water  quality and
minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin. The goal of the
Puget Sound National Estuary Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP), approved in  2009, is  to restore  and maintain the Puget Sound  Estuary's estuarine
50 For additional information please see:
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=e7el6b26192b86b4bala48i775e6777e
https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=fe6d95fee9f929947a9876314191fded
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=Oade65acaede2fdc28a26fGdbf43262
https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=8bd234el795d2cc71f81bc4f7a92269a
                                            372

-------
environment by 2020, so that it will support balanced, indigenous populations of shellfish, fish
and wildlife, and support the extensive list of recognized uses of Puget Sound. The program will
significantly leverage federal funds with  state and local partners to implement the CCMP with
special focus in the following areas:

    •  Restoring and  protecting  nearshore  habitat by  implementing  projects  identified as
       priorities in consultation with federal, tribal,  state, and local partners.  EPA's target is to
       restore  and  protect  approximately one  thousand  acres  of tidally and seasonally-
       influenced estuarine wetlands in FY 2012;

    •  Providing technical and financial support to local governments to reduce the adverse
       impacts of stormwater on the health of watersheds.  Stormwater is a leading stressor on
       watershed health as identified in the 2020 Action Agenda;

    •  Reducing discharges of toxics  and  nutrient pollution by continuing to  implement
       reduction strategies developed with federal, state, tribal and local partners;

    •  Supporting species recovery efforts with federal, tribal, state, and local partners;

    •  Strengthening monitoring,  performance management and science consistent with  the
       Science Plan developed by the Puget Sound Partnership  Science Panel and the advice of
       the Puget  Sound Federal  Caucus  and Canadian partners.   Areas likely  to  receive
       continuing support will include monitoring of indicators for accountability purposes;
       database support; refinement of pathogen, nutrient and toxics loading,  circulation and
       fate models; and watershed assessment work to support more effective implementation
       activities related to water quality and salmon recovery; and

    •  Improving water quality by  supporting local efforts to identify sources of pathogen
       pollution and implementing improved practices to reduce those sources.   The goal is to
       protect human health by upgrading harvest classifications of approximately 500 acres of
       commercial shellfish beds in FY 2012.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(psl) Improve water
quality and enable the
lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of
shellfish bed growing
areas impacted by
degrading or declining
water quality.
FY 2010
Target



1,800



FY 2010
Actual



4,453



FY2011
CR
Target



4,953



FY 2012
Target



5,453



Units



Acres



                                           373

-------

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(ps3) Restore the acres
of tidally and
seasonally influenced
estuarine wetlands.

FY 2010
Target

6,500


FY 2010
Actual

10,062

FY2011
CR
Target

12,363


FY 2012
Target

13,863


Units

Acres

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$4,000.0)  This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding for the Puget Sound
       Ecosystem  Research  Initiative at the University of  Washington's College  of the
       Environment.

    •   (-$25,845.0)  This reduces congressional  directed increase in funding in the FY  2010
       Budget for the Puget Sound Basin.

    •   (-$765.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain  categories  of  spending  for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel,  general services,  printing and supplies.   EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve  these savings.

    •   (-$86.0 / -1.3 FTE)  This  reflects a reduction in staff support for the Puget Sound
       Program. The reduced resources include 1.3 FTE and associated payroll of $86.0.

    •   (-$15.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

Clean  Water Act  (CWA); Water Resources  Development  Act of 1996;  Water  Resources
Development Act  of 2000;  Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act  of 1976  (RCRA);
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); Economy
Act of 1932; Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; Clean  Air Act (CAA); Safe Drinking Water
Act (SWDA); Toxic Substances Control  Act (TSCA); Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide  Act (FIFRA);  Pollution Prevention  Act;  Marine  Protection, Research,  and
Sanctuaries Act; National Environmental Education Act.
                                          374

-------
                                                    Geographic Program: South Florida
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                        Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,168.0
$2,168.0
3.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$2,321.5
$2,321.5
2.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$2,168.0
$2,168.0
3.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$2,061.0
$2,061.0
3.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($107.0)
($107.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The federal government has made substantial progress in Everglades restoration over the past 18
months.   Several key projects have commenced which, when complete, will help to restore
critical flows to Everglades National Park and protect the Everglades ecosystem.  The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) began construction of one mile of bridging on the Tamiami Trail
under  the   Modified  Waters  Delivery  authority,  the C-lll  spreader  canal,  the  C-43
(Caloosahatchee River) project,  and the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project.  The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. National Park Service (NPS) are involved in efforts to
eradicate a wide variety of invasive species throughout the region. In 2010, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture  (USDA)  acquired  easements on  26,000 acres under  the Wetlands Reserve
Program in  the Fisheating  Creek watershed, preserving working agricultural  lands that also
provide critical  water storage and filtration. These are important successes and key milestones in
the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem.

The Administration also has studied the need for additional water flow to Everglades National
Park with additional bridging along the Tamiami Trail.  A final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was released in late 2010. Additionally, the USDA and the U.S. Department of Interior
(DOI) are partnering with farmers and ranchers north of Lake Okeechobee to protect the agrarian
landscape and implement conservation measures that benefit the entire Everglades ecosystem.

EPA's  South Florida program coordinates  activities in the Florida Keys, where water quality and
habitat are directly affected by the pollution from, and restoration efforts in, the Everglades. EPA
implements, coordinates, and facilitates  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  FKNMS  Water Quality Monitoring Program,  the Coral Reef Environmental
Monitoring Program,  the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Program, the Southeast Florida Coral Reef
Initiative (SEFCRI) as directed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, the Brownfields Program,
and other programs. For more information, visit:
http://www.epa.gov/Region4/water/southflorida/.
                                          375

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

All of the federal agencies contributing  to the recovery of the Everglades  Ecosystem  are
advancing one or more of the following four key goals: restoring water flow; restoring habitat;
enhancing water quality; and conserving land. The EPA South Florida program targets efforts in
support of the third goal - enhancing water quality.

    •   Finalize nutrient criteria for the State of Florida in October 2010  for lakes and flowing
       water and in August 2012 for coastal areas and estuaries, consistent with the schedule set
       out in EPA's January 2009 determination;

    •   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 stormwater 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:

             o  Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative;

             o  FKNMS Water Quality Monitoring Program;

             o  Benthic Habitat (seagrass) Monitoring Program;

             o  FKNMS Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Program; and

             o  Water Quality Protection Strategy for the South Florida 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  FKNMS Water Quality
       Protection Program Steering Committee;

    •   Under a consent decree, continue assistance with the development  of Total Maximum
       Daily Loads (TMDLs) for South Florida; and

    •   Assist with the development of and tracking  of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
       System (NPDES)  and other permits, including  discharge limits that are  consistent with
       state  and federal law and federal court consent decrees.
                                          376

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type





Outcome





Measure
(sf3) At least seventy
five percent of the
monitored stations in
the near shore and
coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary will
maintain Chlorophyll
a(CHLA) levels at less
than to equal to 0.35 ug
1-1 and light clarity(
Kd) )levels at less than
or equal to 0.20 m-1.
FY 2010
Target





No Target
Established





FY 2010
Actual











FY2011
CR
Target





75





FY 2012
Target





75





Units





Percent
Stations





Measure
Type






Outcome







Measure
(sf4) At least seventy
five percent of the
monitored stations in
the near shore and
coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary will
maintain dissolved
inorganic nitrogen
(DIN) levels at less
than or equal to 0.75
uM and total
phosphorus (TP) levels
at less than or equal to
.25 uM.
FY 2010
Target






No Target
Established







FY 2010
Actual














FY2011
CR
Target






75







FY 2012
Target






75







Units






Percent
Stations







                                      377

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome




Measure
(sf5) Improve the water
quality of the
Everglades ecosystem
as measured by total
phosphorus, including
meeting the 10 ppb
total phosphorus
criterion throughout
the Everglades
Protection Area marsh.
FY 2010
Target



Maintain




FY 2010
Actual



Not
Maintained




FY2011
CR
Target



Maintain




FY 2012
Target



Maintain




Units



Parts/Billion




FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$86.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$21.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

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.
                                          378

-------
                                            Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin
                                                       Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY 2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY 2010
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY 2012
Pres Budget
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
7.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
7.0
Program Project Description:

Resources  in  this program project -  supplemented by EPA support via the Surface Water
Protection and Gulf of Mexico programs - support grants for the implementation of state nutrient
reduction strategies, consistent with  actions outlined in the Hypoxia Action Plan 2008, and the
Action Plan II. The 2008 Action Plan describes three goals and eleven actions needed to reduce
nitrogen and  phosphorus,  including  the promotion  of effective conservation  practices and
management practices, tracking progress, reducing existing scientific uncertainties, identifying
the economic costs of hypoxia, and promoting effective communications to increase awareness
of Gulf hypoxia.51 EPA's work will  continue  to involve close collaboration with the U.  S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) efforts to target critical watersheds for focused nutrient
reduction efforts and the efforts of the U.S. Geological  Survey (USGS) to measure progress in
nutrient reduction within the  Basin.  EPA will focus on the most significant contributors to
sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loadings at a state and watershed scale in selecting where to
award funds.
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The hypoxic zone that forms in the summer off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas is primarily
caused by  excess nutrients, many of which originate from  farms, urban areas, and industrial
facilities along the Mississippi River and its major tributaries (Ohio River, Illinois River, and
Missouri River).  To address this pressing water quality challenge, EPA will continue to work
with state  and federal  partners to target the highest priority 12 digit HUC high nutrient load
watersheds  in  the  Mississippi River Basin to demonstrate how effective nutrient reduction
strategies and  enhanced partnerships, especially with the  agricultural community, can yield
significant  progress in addressing non-point source driven nutrient pollution.  A key emphasis
will be encouraging partnerships with USDA and USGS to  promote sustainable  agricultural
practices, to reduce nutrient loadings in the Mississippi River Basin, to implement monitoring
programs to measure  nutrient reductions, and to use an adaptive management approach,  as
necessary and  appropriate.   EPA has been working with  USDA's  Farm Service Agency  to
  For more information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/.
                                           379

-------
identify Mississippi  River Basin states interested in participating in  a "farmable wetlands"
program that funds construction of wetlands to treat  nutrients in a very cost-effective manner.
For example, EPA's Region 5 office is assisting the  State of Minnesota to develop a farmable
wetlands pilot program in the Root River area of the  state by providing technical assistance for
the design and siting of constructed wetlands.

In FY 2012, EPA will build upon our strong coordination with USD A and invest in the highest
priority watersheds in  3-4 states in the Mississippi  River Basin through a  competitive grant
process among the states.  The states selected for funding will:  implement strong, watershed-
based  nutrient reduction strategies  for  point  and  nonpoint  sources  contributing sediment,
nitrogen, and phosphorus loading that contribute to water quality problems in nearby waters and
the Gulf of Mexico.  These programs  should  target  funds towards watersheds generating the
greatest nonpoint source loadings of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus and include monitoring
to document actual results from implemented practices.   EPA and the selected states will also
coordinate  with USDA on the Natural Resources Conservation  Service (NRCS)  Mississippi
River Basin Healthy Watershed Initiative.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems
objective.  Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$6,000.0 / +7.0 FTE) This reflects an increase for a competitive grant program to help
       states implement watershed-based strategies to reduce  nutrient loadings in the Mississippi
       River Basin. The additional resources include $887.0 in associated payroll for 7.0 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act.
                                          380

-------
                                               Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                        Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
0.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$6,141.9
$6,141.9
0.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$7,000.0
$7,000.0
0.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$2,962.0
$2,962.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($4,038.0)
($4,038.0)
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, such as the 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. Priorities for CCMP
implementation with quantitative targets and timeframes were adopted in the Long Island Sound
Study 2003 Agreement.

The States of New York and Connecticut are actively reducing nitrogen through their innovative
and nationally-recognized pollution trading programs.  In 2009, 106 sewage treatment plants in
New York and Connecticut discharged 39,011  trade-equalized pounds  per day  of nitrogen to
Long Island Sound.   In  2010, the states restored or protected 1,361 acres of critical coastal
habitat,  and reopened  13.1  miles  of river  corridors to  diadromous  fish passage through
construction of fishways or removal of barriers to fish passage.  EPA will work with the states,
through the Long Island  Sound Futures Fund Grant Program, to continue to assist in restoring
                                          381

-------
and   protecting   critical   habitat   and   reopening   rivers   to  fish   passage.      See
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net for further information.52

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue to oversee implementation of the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) CCMP in
FY 2012 by coordinating  the cleanup  and restoration  actions  of the LISS Management
Conference as authorized under Sections 119 and 320 of the CWA.

In FY 2012, EPA will focus on the following:

    •   Reducing the area of the seasonally impaired fish and shellfish habitats through continued
       emphasis on lowering Sound nitrogen loads to  alleviate low oxygen levels (a condition
       called  hypoxia).  Specifically,  LISO will  work  with  the  States  of New York  and
       Connecticut to revise and implement the  nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load first
       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.   Restoration  and protection  efforts  will  increase
       streams!de buffer zones as natural filters of pollutants and runoff;

    •   Monitoring (year-round  and seasonal) for water quality indicators including: biological
       indicators, such as chlorophyll a, and environmental indicators such as dissolved oxygen
       levels, temperature, salinity,  and water clarity.  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 through the Long
       Island Sound Futures Fund, administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation;

    •   Promoting  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 with 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
52 For additional information see:
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=6504cc92476fD5523fc836b5dc099c2f
                                           382

-------
       managers and public decision-makers in developing policies and strategies to address
       environmental, social, and human health impacts; and

   •   Coordinating with the Long Island Sound Citizens Advisory Committee to develop an
       educated  population that  is  aware of significant  environmental  problems  and  that
       understands the management approach to, and their role in, correcting problems.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(H5) Percent of goal
achieved in reducing
trade-equalized (TE)
point source nitrogen
discharges to Long
Island Sound from the
1999 baseline of
59,146TElbs/day.
FY 2010
Target



52



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
1/701 1



FY2011
CR
Target



55



FY 2012
Target



56



Units



Percent Goal
Achieved



Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(H8) Restore, protect or
enhance acres of
coastal habitat from the
20 10 baseline of 2,975
acres.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target
250
Units
Acres
Measure
Type



Outcome

Measure
(h'9) Reopen miles of
river and stream
corridors to
diadromous fish
passage from the 2012
baseline of 177 river
miles by removal of
dams and barriers or by
installation of bypass
structures.
FY 2010
Target





FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target





FY 2012
Target



38

Units



Miles
Reopened

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$4,000.0)  This reduces the FY 2010 congress!onally directed funding increase for the
       Long Island Sound program.
                                         383

-------
    •   (-$38.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work to  redesign  processes and  streamline  activities in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Long Island Sound Restoration Act, P.L.  106-457 as amended by P.L. 109-137; 33 U.S.C. 1269.
Long Island Sound Stewardship Act, P.L. 109-353; 33 U.S.C.
                                           384

-------
                                                   Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
                                                      Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                        Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
14.0
FY 2010
Actuals
57,677.7
$7,671.7
12.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,000.0
$6,000.0
14.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$4,464.0
$4,464.0
12.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($1,536.0)
($1,536.0)
-1.6
Program Project Description:

Over the past two years, the federal government has renewed its commitment to the Gulf Coast
region.  A series of Administration efforts have sought to better coordinate agencies' activities
strengthening the working relationship with Gulf Coast states.

In October 2009, President Obama  created the Louisiana-Mississippi  Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Working Group to consolidate and  energize federal efforts  in the two states.  The
Working Group produced a "Roadmap" that sought to remedy several policy and process issues
that were impeding restoration progress.  The process  it set in motion has improved the working
relationship  between  the  federal   and  state  governments,  and  between  federal  agency
representatives in Washington DC and the region.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill expanded the scope and visibility of restoration needs  in a
region that had long experienced ecological impacts and highlighted the connection between
ecological health and the human environment.  Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus recognized this
critical fact in his restoration recommendation to the President, outlining clearly the linkages
between economic,  human, and environmental health and the importance of ending long-term
environmental decline  in  this region.   The President incorporated many  of the  Secretary's
ecosystem restoration recommendations when he signed Executive Order 13554, establishing the
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.

While the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts - two of the most critically degraded areas in the
region - were the focus of the ecosystem restoration Roadmap and related working groups, the
recently created Gulf Coast Ecosystem Task Force, chaired by EPA, has expanded the scope to
address the myriad unique environmental challenges facing  this  ecologically  rich, culturally
diverse, and economically important region.  The Natural Resources Damage (NRD)  Trustee
Council will focus on remedying the environmental impacts of the oil spill, while the Task Force
and its federal agency partners will focus their individual efforts on the broader suite of impacts
afflicting the Gulf  Coast  region.  The Task Force  also will assist the Trustee Council, as
necessary, to  implement the NRD Restoration Plan.  The Administration supports dedicating a
portion of civil penalties obtained from parties responsible for the oil  spill to the  Gulf Coast
                                          385

-------
region; these funds will be an important resource for critical ecosystem activities by the Task
Force.

An important issue identified in the Roadmap and in Secretary Mabus' report was the need for a
broad vision and strategy to guide federal cooperative efforts to address the degradation of this
region and to reverse longstanding problems that have contributed to its decline.  EO  13554
tasked the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task  Force with developing a Gulf of Mexico
Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy within one year.  The  Strategy will  identify  major
policy areas where coordinated federal  and state action is  necessary  and also will consider
existing restoration planning efforts in the region to identify planning gaps and restoration needs,
both on a state-by-state basis and on a broad regional scale.  This strategy, combined with the
NRD restoration plan, will likely inform federal investments in ecosystem restoration in the Gulf
region over the next decade.

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 is designed to assist the Gulf states and stakeholders
in developing a  regional, ecosystem-based framework for  restoring and protecting the Gulf of
Mexico.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The  Gulf of Mexico Program Regional Partnership's environmental priority goals are healthy
and  resilient  coastal  habitats,  sustainable coastal  barriers,  wise management of sediments,
improved science monitoring and management efforts for water quality and seafood safety, and
environmental education for underserved/underrepresented communities.  These efforts will
continue to be important based  on restoring the Gulf Coast  region in the  aftermath of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill and in support of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
FY 2012 activities of the Gulf of Mexico Program and its partners will include:

Coastal Habitats Are Healthy and Resilient

Healthy and resilient coastal habitats sustain many ecosystem services upon which humans rely.
Reversing  ongoing  habitat  degradation  and  preserving  the  remaining  healthy  habitats is
necessary to protect the communities, cultures, and  economy of the Gulf Coast.  The overall
wetland loss in the Gulf area is on the order of fifty percent, and protection of the critical habitat
that remains is essential to the health of the Gulf aquatic system.  EPA has a  goal of restoring
30,600 cumulative acres of habitat by FY 2012 and  is working with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA),  environmental  organizations,  the  Gulf of Mexico
Foundation, and area universities to  identify  and restore  critical  habitat.  EPA will enhance
cooperative planning and programs across the Gulf states and federal agencies to protect wetland
and estuarine habitat.

Education  and outreach are  essential to accomplish the EPA's goal of healthy and resilient
coastal habitats; Gulf residents  and decision makers  need to understand and  appreciate the
                                           386

-------
connection between the ecological health of the Gulf of Mexico and its watersheds and coasts,
their own health, the economic vitality of their communities, and their overall  quality of life.
There also is a nationwide need for a better understanding of the link between the health of the
Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. economy.  EPA's long-term goal is to increase  awareness and
stewardship of Gulf coastal resources and promote action among Gulf citizens. In 2012, the Gulf
of Mexico Program  will  establish public  and private support for the  development  and
deployment of the Gulf Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers Rotational Educational Exhibits
Initiative; will foster  regional stewardship and  awareness of Gulf coastal  resources through
annual Gulf Guardian Awards; and will support initiatives that include direct involvement from
underserved  and underrepresented populations  and  enhance local  capacity  to reach these
populations.

Sustainable Coastal Barriers

The Gulf Coast supports a diverse array of coastal, estuarine, nearshore and offshore ecosystems,
including seagrass beds, wetlands and  marshes,  mangroves, barrier islands, sand dunes, coral
reefs, maritime  forests, bayous,  streams, and  rivers.   These  ecosystems provide numerous
ecological  and economic benefits including water quality, nurseries for  fish, wildlife habitat,
hurricane and flood  buffers, erosion  prevention,  stabilized  shorelines, tourism,  jobs,  and
recreation. Coastal communities  continuously face  and adapt to  various challenges of living
along the Gulf of Mexico.  The  economic, ecological, and social losses from  coastal hazard
events have grown as population growth places people in harm's way and as the ecosystems'
natural resilience is compromised by development and pollution.  In order to sustain and grow
the Gulf region's economic prosperity, individuals, businesses, communities, and ecosystems all
need to be more adaptable to change.  In FY 2012, EPA will assist with the development of
information, tools, technologies, products, policies, or public decision processes that can be used
by coastal communities to increase resilience to coastal natural hazards and sea level rise.  EPA
is working with NOAA's Sea Grant Programs and the U.S. Geological Survey in support of this
goal.

Management of Sediments and Impact of Nutrients

The wise management of sediments for wetland creation, enhancement, and sustainability is of
critical importance to the Gulf Coast region, especially given locally high rates of subsidence, or
settling,  and the regionwide threat from potential  future impacts  of climate change. To
successfully sustain and enhance coastal ecosystems, a broad sediment management effort is
needed that incorporates beneficial use of dredge material, and other means of capturing all
available sediment resources.

Healthy  estuaries and  coastal wetlands depend  on a balanced level of  nutrients.   Excessive
nutrient levels can have negative impacts such as reducing the abundance of recreationally and
commercially important fishery species.  An excess amount of nutrients is identified as one of
the primary problems facing Gulf estuaries and coastal waters.  Over the next several years, the
Gulf states will establish criteria for nutrients in coastal ecosystems that will guide regulatory,
land use, and water quality  protection  decisions.   Nutrient criteria  could potentially reverse
current trends in nutrient pollution to coastal waters and estuaries, but the challenge is to prevent
                                           387

-------
or reduce the man-made sources of nutrients to levels that maintain ecosystem productivity and
restore beneficial uses.  In FY 2012, EPA will support coastal nutrient criteria and standards
development with a Gulf state pilot and will develop science and management tools for the
characterization  of nutrients in coastal ecosystems.  Because the five Gulf states face similar
nutrient management challenges at both the estuary level and as the receiving water for the entire
Mississippi River watershed, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance Partnership is an important venue to
build and test management tools to reduce nutrients in Gulf waters  and achieve healthy and
resilient coastal ecosystems.

Any strategy to improve the overall health of the entire Gulf of Mexico must include a focused
effort to reduce the size of the hypoxic  zone in the northern Gulf.   Actions to address this
problem  must focus on both localized pollutant addition throughout the Basin and on nutrient
loadings from the Mississippi River.  EPA, in cooperation with states and other federal agencies,
supports the long-term target to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone from approximately  17,300
square kilometers to less than 5,000 square kilometers, measured as a five-year running average.
In working to accomplish this goal, EPA, states, and other federal agencies, such as USD A, will
continue implementation of core clean water programs and partnerships and efforts to coordinate
allocation of technical assistance and funding to priority areas around the Gulf.

Specifically, in FY 2012, EPA's Mississippi River Basin program will address excessive nutrient
loadings that contribute to water quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to hypoxic
conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. Working with the  Gulf Hypoxia Task Force, Gulf of Mexico
Alliance and other states within the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basins, other federal agencies,
and the Gulf Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, EPA will help develop and implement nutrient
reduction strategies that include an  accountability framework for point and nonpoint sources
contributing nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Gulf, as well as watershed plans that provide
a road map for addressing nonpoint sources.  EPA will continue to coordinate with USDA and
with federal  and state partners to  support monitoring best management practices and  water
quality improvement  through work with the partner organizations and states and to leverage
resources to focus wetland restoration and development and habitat restoration efforts towards
projects  with  the  Mississippi  River Basin that will sequester nutrients  as appropriate  from
targeted watersheds and tributaries.

Improve Science Monitoring and Management Efforts for Water Quality for Healthy Beaches

The  Clean  Water  Act provides authority and resources that are essential to protecting  water
quality in the Gulf of Mexico and in the larger Mississippi River Basin, which contributes
pollution, especially  oxygen demanding  nutrients,  to the Gulf.   Enhanced monitoring and
research  is needed in the Gulf Coast region to make data more readily available.  EPA regional
offices and the Gulf of Mexico Program Office will work with states to continue to maximize the
efficiency and utility of water quality monitoring efforts for local managers by coordinating and
standardizing state and federal water quality data collection activities in the Gulf region.   These
efforts will assure the continued effective implementation of core clean water programs, ranging
from discharge permits, to nonpoint pollution controls, to wastewater treatment, to protection of
wetlands. The Gulf of Mexico  Program is  working with NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps  of
Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey in support  of this goal.
                                           388

-------
A central pillar of the strategy to restore the health of the Gulf is restoration of water quality and
habitat in 13  priority coastal  watersheds.   These 13 watersheds, which include 755 of the
impaired segments  identified by  states  around the Gulf,  will receive targeted technical and
financial assistance to restore impaired waters.  The FY 2012 goal is to fully attain water quality
standards in at least  132 of these segments.

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) cause public health advisories, halt commercial and recreational
shellfish harvesting, limit recreation,  exacerbate human respiratory problems, and cause fish
kills.  EPA is working with Mexico and the Gulf states to implement an advanced detection and
forecasting capability system  to manage harmful algal blooms and for notifying public health
managers.  The  Agency  expects to expand  the system in FY 2012  by  providing support for
taxonomy training in Yucatan and Quintana Roo which will complete  the training in all six
Mexican States.

The  Gulf of Mexico Program  Office has a long-standing commitment to develop  effective
partnerships with other programs within EPA,  other federal agencies, and other organizations.
For example, the program office is working with the EPA Research and Development Program
and other  federal agencies  to develop and implement a coastal monitoring program  to better
assess the condition  of Gulf waters.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(22b) 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 2010
Target



2.5



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



2.5



FY 2012
Target



2.6



Units



Scale



Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(xgl) Restore water
and habitat quality to
meet water quality
standards in impaired
segments in 13 priority
coastal areas
(cumulative starting in
FY 07).
FY 2010
Target



96



FY 2010
Actual



170



FY2011
CR
Target



202



FY 2012
Target



234



Units



Impaired
Segments



                                          389

-------

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(xg2) Restore,
enhance, or protect a
cumulative number of
acres of important
coastal and marine
habitats.

FY 2010
Target


27,500



FY 2010
Actual


29,552


FY2011
CR
Target


30,000



FY 2012
Target


30,600



Units


Acres


For FY 2012, the Gulf of Mexico Program will continue to support specific challenges designed
to restore and enhance the environmental and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico through
cooperative partnerships and in support of the goals of the Strategy developed by the Gulf of
Mexico Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$109.0)  This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$45.0) This reflects a reduction  as part of the Administrative Efficiencies Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of  spending  for  efficiencies and  reductions,
       including  advisory contracts,  travel, general services,  printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$1,362.0) This reduces the FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increase for the
       Gulf of Mexico program.

    •   (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
       Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

    •   (-0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$20.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act.
                                           390

-------
                                                  Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
                                                       Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
0.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$486.9
$486.9
0.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
0.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$1,399.0
$1,399.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($2,601.0)
($2,601.0)
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,
and amended in 2002.  A management plan for the watershed, "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 partnerships undertaking the implementation
of the Plan.  "Opportunities  for  Action"  is designed  to  address various threats  to  Lake
Champlain's water  quality,  including  phosphorus  loadings,  invasive  species,  and  toxic
substances.53

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Through  a collaborative  and transparent process, 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 2012  activities include:

    •   Working with federal, state, provincial, and local  partners to address high levels  of
       phosphorous by implementing the joint Vermont and New York Lake Champlain Total
       Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to reduce phosphorus loads from all categories of sources
       (point, urban, and agricultural nonpoint);

    •   Working with federal, state, and provincial partners to implement actions included in the
       newly  revised  Lake  Champlain Management  Plan,  developing  a  system  to  track
       implementation of those actions, and tying these actions to an adaptive management
       framework for evaluating results;

53 For additional information see: http://www.epa.gov/NE/eco/lakechamplain/index.html
 http://www.lcbp.org. http://nh.water.usgs.gov/champlain feds, http://www.cfda.gov
                                           391

-------
•  Reviewing results of the critical source area study undertaken by the International Joint
   Commission  and beginning collaboration with Lake Champlain partners at the state,
   local, federal, and provincial levels for implementation of the recommendations from that
   study;

•  Carrying out required activities resulting  from  the Lake Champlain TMDL lawsuit and
   the Vermont National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) withdrawal
   petition;

•  Implementing an  adaptive management framework  for  evaluating  the  results  of
   management efforts in the Lake Champlain Basin on water quality and other ecosystem
   indicators.  This adaptive management plan will integrate  and complement the ongoing
   critical source area studies with sub-watershed management practices.  This plan will
   evaluate  phosphorus TMDL load allocations through quantitative methods, and be  an
   extension of the current  monitoring regime for Lake Champlain and tributaries. The
   adaptive  management plan will  include current  and  future  TMDL implementation
   scenarios, and identify cost-effective alternatives to attain TMDL load allocations;

•  Developing and implementing a tracking system for investments in Lake Champlain
   Basin restoration;

•  Preventing the  introduction of an invasive form of Didymosphenia geminata into the
   Lake Champlain Basin from the neighboring Connecticut River  watershed by expanding
   education and outreach on detection and spread prevention methods;

•  Monitoring the Lake Champlain  Basin for possible introduction of invasive species,
   including the following: Asian clam, Asian carp, and spiny waterflea;

•  Monitoring the population of alewives, a  recent invasive  species  affecting  Lake
   Champlain, and expanding efforts to educate  the  public on the perils of transporting
   baitfish.  Efforts also include harmonizing baitfish regulations in Vermont and New
   York, as  well as working to remove and/or prevent the entry or dispersal of this and other
   fish, invasive plants, and invertebrates in the Lake Champlain Basin;

•  Working with partners, such as the  Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State
   Canal Corporation, to devise means to reduce  the likelihood that new invasive species
   can enter Lake Champlain from the Great Lakes through the Champlain Canal;

•  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;
                                       392

-------
   •   Implementing recommendations resulting from the climate change studies (water quality,
       precipitation, and flow) to reduce the impacts of climate change on water quality in the
       Lake Champlain Basin; and

   •   Developing new approaches to stormwater control from urban areas in conjunction with
       state partners.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems
objective. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$2,566.0)  This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increases for Lake
       Champlain Basin.

   •   (-$35.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water  Act (CWA);  North American Wetlands Conservation
Act;  U.S.-Canada  Agreements; National Heritage  Areas  Act of 2006;  Water  Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 and 2007.
                                          393

-------
                                                          Geographic Program: Other
                                                     Program Area: Geographic Programs
                                                       Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                                     Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$7,273.0
$7,273.0
10.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$4,545.9
$4,545.9
9.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$7,273.0
$7,273.0
10.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$4, 635.0
$4,635.0
8.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($2,638.0)
($2,638.0)
-1.5
Program Project Description:

EPA targets efforts to protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted by
environmental problems.   This program is in line with  the  Administrator's  emphasis on
maintaining  a place-based focus. Under this program,  the  Agency develops and implements
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.

Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)

Through the CARE program, EPA provides funding, tools and technical support that enable
underserved  communities to create collaborative partnerships to take effective actions to address
local environmental problems.   The on-the-ground support and funding help to reduce toxic
pollution from all sources, revitalize underserved areas and improve the  health of communities
across  the nation in sustainable ways.  In dealing with multi-media, multi-layered  issues,
communities want "One EPA" and "one government" and the CARE program provides them
with this.  For each of the CARE communities, EPA works together with the community to see
their problems  holistically, the  way they  see them.  CARE  is a model for  "One  EPA,"
recognizing  that genuine  cooperation across the  agency  and an integrated way of reaching
solutions best protects the environment.

CARE is highly regarded  for its successful innovations  in cross-agency management, grants
award and administration, and most importantly, its meaningful engagements between  EPA and
the environmental justice community. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
issued a positive evaluation of the CARE demonstration program in May  2009 observing ".. .the
CARE program complements EPA regulatory strategies with place-based strategies—strategies
                                         394

-------
that consider the local context in which environmental decisions are made and effects are felt."54
The NAPA Panel believes that the CARE approach represents a "next step"  in environmental
improvement and protection, concluding that the CARE program successfully demonstrates that
the concept works well to combine EPA expertise with community capacity-building to deliver
funding and assistance to address risks from all sources of toxics in underserved communities.

Since its launch in 2005, the CARE program has awarded 91  grants to communities across 39
states with over 1,700 partners engaged for a total of over $14 million in grants.  These grants
address one or more of EPA's priorities:  25 percent address  climate change; 50 percent address
air pollution; 50 percent address safety of chemicals; 30 percent address cleanup of communities;
and 30  percent address water issues.  Since 2009,  68 CARE communities have  leveraged an
additional $12 million in funding - with local partners providing an additional $2 million in in-
kind services; visited over 4,000 homes  providing information and/or  environmental testing;
worked to reduce risks in almost 300 schools and provided  environmental information to over
2,800 businesses and 50,000 individuals.

CARE delivers funding through two types 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, environmental
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.  The  CARE  program  ended its  successful
demonstration period in FY 2010.  The cooperative agreements issued under the demonstration
authorities of the seven environmental statutes  may not be used to support day-to-day  program
implementation. In FY 2012, EPA is requesting new grant authority to implement the CARE
program to continue serving communities across the nation.

The Northwest Forest Program

The  Northwest  Forest Program  supports  interagency  coordination,  watershed  assessment,
conservation, and restoration efforts across seven states in the Pacific Northwest.  In addition to
supporting  protection of  drinking  water  and  Total  Maximum  Daily  Load (TMDL)
implementation, the  Northwest Forest Program  includes 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

Through a collaborative and voluntary effort, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program
strives to restore the ecological health  of the Basin by developing and funding  restoration
projects within the sixteen parishes in the basin. The program continues to support the efforts of
  http://www.napawash.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09-06.pdf
                                          395

-------
the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation by sampling lake and tributary water quality to support
related scientific and public education projects.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA  and partner  agencies will protect and  restore various  communities and
ecosystems impacted by various sources of pollution.  These  collaborative and  transparent
community-based approaches will decrease the cumulative risk for geographic areas. EPA's FY
2012 efforts will focus on the following:

CARE

A total FY 2012  investment of $2.4 million (see table 1) in the CARE program will address
pollution  problems in  underserved communities  (90  percent of  CARE  projects  are  in
Environmental  Justice  communities of  concern).  EPA will  help  underserved  and other
communities use collaborative processes to select and implement local actions and will award
federal funding for projects to  reduce exposure to toxic pollutants and local  environmental
problems.  EPA is requesting new grant authority in FY 2012 to  continue this program beyond
the demonstration phase.  Table 1 displays the multi-media structure  of the CARE program.
Table 1: FY 2012 CARE Funding by EPA Program Office
(Dollars in Thousands)

EPA Program Office
Air and Radiation Program
Water Program
Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention Program
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Program
Total Funding Level

FY
$
$
$
$
$
2012 PB
687.0
573.0
587.0
537.0
2,384.0
In FY 2012, the CARE program will provide support to communities to help them understand
and improve their local environments and health by:

   •   Selecting and awarding approximately ten assistance agreements to create and strengthen
       local partnerships, local capacity, and civic engagement to improve local environments
       and health, and to ensure sustainability of environmental health efforts over time;

   •   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 programs and helping communities utilize these
       programs to reduce risks;
                                          396

-------
    •  Continuing implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Centers
       for Disease Control's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry  (ATSDR), to
       improve support for communities by coordinating the efforts of multiple federal agencies
       working at the community level to improve environmental health;

    •  Conducting outreach to  share lessons learned by CARE communities and encouraging
       other communities to build partnerships and take actions to reduce risks; and

    •  Exploring and piloting, as appropriate, the Partners Program to provide technical support
       and access to EPA programs while outside  organizations provide  funding  to the
       community.   The  CARE Partners Program pilots  could  provide  the opportunity to
       leverage EPA's investment and allow CARE to reach  more communities than could be
       reached with increased grant funding alone.

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 2012, EPA will invest  $1.3 million in the
Northwest Forest Program for the following activities:

    •  Continue stream  reach sampling on 636 stream reaches and watershed condition/trend
       monitoring  in  378  sub-watersheds  in  California,  Oregon,  Idaho,  Montana,   and
       Washington;

    •  Use remote sensed data and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data layers and field
       data to support a five-year trend assessment  on 5,132  6th field watersheds55 in Oregon,
       Washington, Northern California, Montana,  Idaho, Nevada, and Utah;

    •  Utilize upslope analysis,  in-channel assessments, emerging research, and decision support
       models to inform management decisions and refine future monitoring  efforts;

    •  Compile  temperature  and  macroinvertebrate  data  and  establish  300  year-round
       temperature monitoring  stations  to  support  state water  quality and aquatic  habitat
       reporting, including 303(d) listings;

    •  Complete/utilize  field reviews of grazing  activities and evaluate stream  and riparian
       conditions to tie back to monitoring trends and inform necessary management changes;
55 A 6th field watershed is a hydro logical unit. Watersheds in the United States were delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey
using a national standard hierarchical system based on surface hydrologic features and are classified into the following types of
hydrologic units: First-field (region); Second-field (sub-region); Third-field (accounting unit); Fourth-field (cataloguing unit);
Fifth-field (watershed); and Sixth-field (sub-watershed). For more information visit: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.
                                            397

-------
   •   Refine shade models to assist managers in prioritizing restoration opportunities to address
       stream temperature and sediment issues;

   •   Utilize aquatic monitoring to detect invasive species in streams and riparian areas; and

   •   Assist in development of implementation-ready TMDLs and Best Management Practices
       (BMPs) for forestry practices in five Oregon coastal basins.

Lake Pontchartrain

The program will work to restore the ecological health of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. In FY
2012, EPA will invest $955 thousand in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program for the following
activities:

   •   Continuing implementation of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program Comprehensive
       Management Plan56 (LPBCMP) to support:

             o   Planning and design of consolidated wastewater treatment systems to support
                 sustainable infrastructure;

             o   Repair and replacement studies to improve existing wastewater systems; and

             o   Investigation and design of stormwater management systems.

   •   Conducting water quality monitoring outreach and public education projects that address
       the goals of the LPBCMP to:

             o   Improve the management of animal waste lagoons by educating and assisting
                 the agricultural community on lagoon maintenance techniques;

             o   Protect and restore critical habitats  and encourage sustainable growth by
                 providing   information and guidance  on  habitat  protection  and  green
                 development techniques; and

             o   Reduce pollution  at its  source  and  determine any impacts  to Lake
                 Pontchartrain from the recent major oil spill.

Performance Targets:

Work under these programs  supports the Restore  and  Protect Critical  Ecosystems objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
 'http://www.saveourlake.org/management-plan.php
                                          398

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$24.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$2,000.0 / -1.5 FTE) This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increases
       for the Potomac Highlands initiative. The reduced resources  include 1.5 FTE, decreased
       associated payroll of $180.0, and reduced travel of $20.0.

    •   (-$522.0) This reduces FY 2010 congressionally directed funding increases for the Lake
       Pontchartrain  Basin Restoration Program.  This reduction will reduce EPA support for
       the  implementation  of the  Lake   Pontchartrain  Basin   Program  Comprehensive
       Management Plan,  including water quality  and  infrastructure improvements and coastal
       restoration.

    •   (-$92.0) This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts,  travel, general services,  printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act of 2000, codified as Clean Water Act  (CWA)
§121, 33 U.S.C.  §1273,   directed EPA to establish a Lake  Pontchartrain Basin  Restoration
Program "to restore the ecological health  of the Basin by developing and funding restoration
projects and  related  scientific and public education projects." CWA  §121(b);  CWA; Water
Resources Development Act of 1996; Water Resources Development Act of 2000; Resource
Conservation  and   Recovery  Act  (RCRA);  Comprehensive   Environmental   Response,
Compensation  and  Liability  Act (CERCLA); Economy  Act  of 1932;  Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act;  Clean Air Act (CAA); Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA); Toxic  Substances
Control Act (TSCA); Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide and  Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Pollution
Prevention Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; and National Environmental
Education Act.
                                          399

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
              400

-------
                                   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
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$6,926.0
$6,926.0
17.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$7,206.3
$7,206.3
16.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,926.0
$6,926.0
17.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$4,257.0
$4,257.0
16.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($2,669.0)
($2,669.0)
-1.0
Program Project Description:

Recent disasters and incidents continue to demonstrate that timely and effective environmental
information is key to the protection of human health and the environment.  EPA's Environmental
Information Program must play a major role to safeguard  workforce health and safety in the
event of a significant incident, a Continuity of Operations (COOP), or a pandemic situation.

The White House, Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  have defined
their expectations of EPA during a homeland security incident through a series of statutes,
presidential directives,  and  national plans. EPA uses  the Homeland  Security Collaborative
Network (HSCN), a cross-agency leadership group, to support the Agency's ability to effectively
implement this 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. EPA's homeland security program also capitalizes on the concept of "dual-
benefits" so that EPA's  homeland  security  efforts enhance and  integrate with  EPA's  core
environmental programs that  serve to protect human health and the environment.

Homeland Security information technology efforts are closely coordinated with  the agencywide
Information Security and Infrastructure  activities, which are managed in the Information Security
and IT/Data Management programs.   The upgrading and standardization of technology,  with
particular  emphasis on the Internet  Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) infrastructure,  is necessary to
provide information access during an  emergency.  This program  also enables video contact
between localities, headquarters, Regional offices, and laboratories in emergency  situations.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will update and maintain a homeland  security policy for planning,  preparedness, response
and recovery for nationally significant incidents. EPA's homeland security efforts will focus on
maintaining its preparedness  level, filling critical knowledge and technology gaps, and working
                                          401

-------
with partners to define collective capabilities and leverage combined resources to close common
gaps.

EPA will ensure that interagency intelligence-related planning and operational requirements are
met. This  will  be achieved  through coordination 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 National and Homeland Security
Councils.  EPA also will track emerging national/homeland security  issues in order to anticipate
and  avoid  crisis situations and  target the Agency's efforts proactively against threats to the
United States.

EPA's FY  2012 resources will support national security efforts through monitoring across the
Agency's IT infrastructure, to detect, remediate, and eradicate malicious software or Advanced
Persistent Threats  (APT)  from EPA's networks and through improved detection capabilities.
EPA will improve national security efforts, including heightened awareness and vigilance across
the Information Security community, by increasing training and awareness of these threats.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this program  supports multiple  strategic objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$150.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •  (-$159.0  / -1.0 FTE)  This  change includes $159.0 in  associated payroll  and reflects
       EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources,
       skills and agency priorities by streamlining administrative management.

    •  (-$130.0) This reflects a reduction to the homeland security program's mission support
      contract.

    •  (-$11.0)  This decrease in travel  costs reflects an effort to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    • (-$28.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
      initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
      advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
      work to  redesign  processes  and streamline  activities  in both  administrative   and
      programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                           402

-------
   •  (-$2,491.0)   This reflects a reduction to the Agency's homeland security specific IT
      infrastructure security efforts related to the deployment of critical infrastructure in support
      of emergency response and homeland security activities.

Statutory Authority:

Homeland Security Presidential Directives, 5 U.S.C. 101 et seq.  - Sections HSPD 1-25 and
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 42 U.S.C. 3231 et
seq. - Sections 300,  300.1, 300.2, 300.3, 300.4, 300.5,  300.6 and  300.7 and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. -
Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. - Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. - Sections 1400, 1401, 1411, 1421,  1431, 1441,
1454 and 1461 and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. - Sections  101,  102, 103,
104,  105, 107, and Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102,
103,  104 and 108 and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. - Sections
201, 301 and 401 and Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),  7 U.S.C. 36
et seq. - Sections 136a - 136y and Bio Terrorism Act of 2002, 42. U.S.C. 201 et seq. - Sections
303, 305, 306 and 307 and Homeland Security Act of 2002, 116 U.S.C. 2135 et seq. - Sections
101,  102,  103, 201,  202, 211-215, 221-225,  231-235 and 237  and Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act, 6 U.S.C. 772 et seq. - Sections  501, 502, 503, 504, 505,  506, 507,
508,  509, 510, 511, 512 and 513  and Defense  Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, 50
U.S.C. 2302 et seq. - (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
                                         403

-------
                                   Homeland Security:  Critical Infrastructure Protection
                                                         Program Area: Homeland Security
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                      Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$6,805.1
$20,954.9
$1,269.5
$29,029.5
46.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$1,065.0
$11,379.0
$0.0
$12,444.0
25.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($5,771.0)
($11,647.0)
($1,760.0)
($19,178.0)
-24.0
Program Project Description:

This program includes a number of 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.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Information Sharing Networks & Water Security

In FY 2012, 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  water sector  by  providing  access  to information  sharing tools  and
mechanisms  that  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, emergency  services
personnel, law enforcement, public health agencies, the intelligence community, and technical
assistance providers.   Through such exchange, water systems can obtain up-to-date information
on current technologies in water security, accurately assess their vulnerabilities to terror acts, and
work cooperatively with public health officials, first responders, and law enforcement  officials to
respond effectively in the event of an  emergency.
                                           404

-------
EPA continues to partner with available information sharing networks to promote drinking water
and wastewater utilities'  access  to  up-to-date security  information.  In FY 2012,  EPA will
continue efforts to increase the water sector's participation in these critical networks. This effort
will ensure that these utilities have access to a comprehensive  range of important  materials,
including tools, training,  and protocols,  some  of which may be  sensitive and therefore  not
generally available through other means. In addition to providing a vehicle for utilities to access
these  materials, EPA will continue to develop materials to ensure that utilities have the most
updated information.  This work also will enable participating water utilities of all sizes to gain
access to a rapid notification system. Participating utilities will then receive alerts about changes
in the homeland  security  advisory level or to regional and national trends in certain types of
water-related incidents. For example,  should there be types of specific water related incidents
that are  re-occurring,  the alerts  distributed to the utilities will make note of the increasing
multiple occurrences  or  "trends" of  these incidents.   Access to such  information  sharing
networks allows the water sector not  only to improve their understanding of the latest water
security  and resiliency protocols and threats, but also to reduce their risk by enhancing their
ability to prepare for an emergency.  The  FY 2012 request level  for the information sharing
networks is $1.1 million.

Counterterrorism

There is no request for this program in FY 2012.

Monitoring

There is no request for this program in FY 2012.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports multiple strategic  objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$2.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-$1,494.0)  This reduction reflects decreased federal support for the water information
       sharing networks in FY 2011  and  FY 2012 as it transitions to a subscription based
       program and meets intended programmatic goals by FY 2012.

   •    (-$540.0) This reduction  eliminates travel and expense resources that support regional
       water response teams.

   •   (-$9.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
                                           405

-------
       work  to redesign processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$1,114.07-1.0 FTE) This reduction reflects  the development of effective monitoring
       modeling methodologies to demonstrate the effects of air threats to air quality in the
       United States for use  in emergency response situations.  This reduction includes 1.0 FTE
       and associated payroll of $123.0.

   •   (-$2,616.0 7 -11.8 FTE)  EPA does not need to maintain separate capacity to support
       environmental  criminal investigations and training for terrorism-related investigations.
       This reduction  reflects  the   increased capacity  of other agencies  to  handle  the
       environmental  forensics  work associated  with potential  homeland security  related
       incidents. This reduction includes $1,980.0 in associated payroll for 11.8 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A, 42 U.S.C. §300f-300j-9 as added by Public Law 93-523 and the amendments made by
subsequent enactments,  Sections - 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435; CWA,  33 U.S.C.  §1251 et
seq.; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
                                          406

-------
                             Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
                                                       Program Area: Homeland Security
                            Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                     Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY 2010
Actuals
$4,264.2
$37,697.9
$51,558.9
$93,521.0
176.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$30,078.0
$40,662.0
$70,740.0
170.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($3,423.0)
($11,579.0)
($12,918.0)
($27,920.0)
-3.3
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  agencywide 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 chemical agents is different from
the response to biological  agents, but for both, the goals are to facilitate preparedness,  guide the
appropriate  response by  first responders, ensure safe re-occupancy  of buildings  or other
locations, and protect the production of crops, livestock, and food in the U.S. In the case of
chemical agents,  EPA develops  new information to  assist emergency  planners  and  first
responders in assessing immediate hazards.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

There is no request for this program in FY 2012.

Performance Targets:

This program has consistently exceeded its performance targets in past years in developing
Proposed AEGL values.  Work under this program also supports performance results in Toxic
Substances - Chemical  Risk Review and Reduction and can be found in the Performance Four
Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$1,589.07-1.0 FTE)  This reduction reflects the elimination of EPA's support for the
       development and refinement of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs), a program
                                         407

-------
       for  developing  scientifically  credible limits  for short-term  exposures  to  airborne
       concentrations of acutely  toxic high-priority chemicals.   Work to develop proposed
       values will be completed in FY 2011. Most of the proposed values have already been
       elevated to Interim status and are being implemented. The reduced resources include 1.0
       FTE and associated payroll of $155.0.

   •   (-$369.07-2.0 FTE) This reflects the redirection of pesticide program resources to support
       core program operations in Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk. This
       will impact efficacy testing of chemicals and pesticides for decontamination of food and
       agricultural facilities and disinfectants for hospital use.  The reduced resources include
       2.0 FTE and associated payroll of $311.0.

   •   (-$1,409.0) This reflects decreased support for homeland security pesticides related
       activities.  This reduction is possible since EPA has assisted the Department of Homeland
       Security (DHS) and other agencies in completing guidance on  procedures, plans, and
       technologies  to  restore airports  following  a biological  attack,  and  completed  the
       development of a risk management framework for decision-makers for restoration and
       recovery from a biological incident, including response to and recovery from Bacillus
       anthracis contamination of a large urban area.

   •   (-$56.0) This reflects reduced costs for IT security and integration services.

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.
                                          408

-------
                     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 2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$6,300.3
$593.0
$9,652.1
$1,194.0
$17,739.4
3.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$5,978.0
$579.0
$8,038.0
$1,172.0
$15,767.0
3.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($391.0)
($14.0)
($32.0)
($22.0)
($459.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

This portion of EPA's Homeland Security Program is composed of the following 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will focus on issuing secure and reliable identification (Smart Cards) to
all employees  and select  non-federal workers. Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)
201-1, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, establishes the technical
specifications  for the  Smart Cards.   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
hires, process national security clearances, and maintain personnel security files and information.

Regarding  national  security  information,  FY  2012  activities  will  include:  classifying,
declassifying and safeguarding classified information; identifying  and marking of classified
                                          409

-------
information;  performing education,  training,  and outreach; and  conducting audits  and  self
inspections.  In addition, certification and accreditation of Secure Access Facilities (SAFs) and
Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) will continue.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports  multiple  strategic  objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$31.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •  (-$200.0) This reflects an efficiency achieved through combining the National Security
       Information Program and Personnel Security Program. Combining the support contracts
       for  two functionally-related, but separate programs creates a streamlining effect which
       allows for leveraging knowledge and resources between the two programs.

    •  (-$159.0) This reflects a reduction as  part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of  spending for  efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •  (-$17.0) This decrease in travel costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •  (+$16.0) This reflects a realignment  of general expenses  and contracts  to  support
       administrative costs.

Statutory Authority:

The National Security Strategy; Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of  2004;
Executive Orders 10450,  12958, and 12968; Title V CFR Parts 731 and 732.
                                           410

-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                    411

-------
                           Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination
                                              Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                               Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                         Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$7,100.0
$7,100.0
11.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$5,715.8
$5,715.8
13.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$7,100.0
$7,100.0
11.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$10,795.0
$10,795.0
30.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,695.0
$3,695.0
19.0
Program Project Description:

The Agency coordinates and  advances protection of children's environmental health through
regulatory development, science policy, program implementation, communication and effective
results measurement to make protecting children an explicit part of the EPA mission to protect
human health.  The children's  health protection effort is directed by the 1997 Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children's Health from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks and
the 2010 memorandum from the Administrator, EPA 's Leadership in Children's Environmental
Health. Legislative mandates such as the Energy Independence and  Security Act of 2007 (EISA),
the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 also
direct the Agency to protect children and other vulnerable life stages.57

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2012, EPA will continue  to use a variety  of approaches to  protect  children  from
environmental  health  hazards. Those  approaches will  include  regulation, implementation of
community-based programs, research,  and outreach.   At  the  same  time,  the program  will
periodically  evaluate  EPA's performance to  ensure  that  it is  making steady  progress.  The
Children's Health  program  will  take the lead in ensuring that EPA programs and Regional
offices are successful in their efforts to protect children's environmental health. (In FY 2012, the
Children  and other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination program will be funded at
$10.79 million and 30.9 FTE.)
57 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 directs EPA to produce guidelines on the safe siting of schools and
guidelines to states on school environmental health programs in order to protect children from environmental hazards where they
leam.
The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require EPA to strengthen protection of children by considering the risk to
the most vulnerable populations and lifestages when setting standards.
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to include stricter safety standards for pesticides, especially for infants and
children, and a complete reassessment of all existing pesticide tolerances.
                                             412

-------
The following are planned activities in FY 2012:

   •   As part of the Healthy Communities Initiative:  Clean, Green and Healthy Schools, the
       program will continue working internally and with other agencies,  states and tribes to
       expand coordinated implementation of successful community-based programs to improve
       children's health outcomes. Internally, EPA will continue improving coordination across
       the Agency to ensure that policies and programs explicitly consider and use the most up-
       to-date data and methods for protecting children from heightened public health risks.

   •   In addition, EPA will continue to serve as a co-lead of an inter-agency effort with the
       Department of Education,  Department of Health and Human Services and other related
       agencies to  improve  Federal government wide  support  in implementing legislative
       mandates under the EISA and coordinating outreach and technical assistance.

   •   Address the potential  for unique  exposures,  health effects,  and health risks  in children
       during the development of Agency regulations and  policies.

   •   Coordinate with internal and external research partners to fill critical knowledge gaps on
       children's unique vulnerabilities.

   •   Improve EPA risk assessment  and  science  policies and their implementation tools to
       ensure they address unique, early-life health  susceptibilities including those for multiple
       environmental hazards and stressors.

   •   Contribute to standards, policies, and guidance at home and abroad that protect children
       by eliminating potentially harmful prenatal  and childhood  exposures  to  pesticides  and
       other toxic chemicals.

   •   Increase environmental health knowledge of health care providers related to prenatal and
       childhood exposures and health outcomes with a focus on vulnerable groups.

   •   Continue to work toward the goal  of developing measures related to children's health for
       which baseline data can be collected in FY 2012, and set targets in FY 2013.

   •   Increase transparency  and coordination with states,  local communities, schools and the
       general public by supporting a  strong communications and outreach  effort to  share
       information and provide technical  assistance,  tools  and materials to schools and
       stakeholder groups.

Performance Targets:

Work  under  this  program  supports multiple strategic  objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
                                           413

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$903.0) This decrease reflects a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs for existing FTE.

    •   (+$2,501.07+11.0 FTE)  This increase supports the coordination and implementation of
       EISA, providing technical assistance to states and communities on implementation of
       voluntary  school citing  and environmental health guidelines.  The resources will  also
       support the Agency's cross-program Healthy Communities Initiative: Clean, Green and
       Healthy Schools. These resources include $1,595.0 in associated payroll and 11.0 FTE.

    •   (+$1,254.07+2.0  FTE)  This  increase  reflects  the Agency's cross-program  Healthy
       Communities Initiative: Clean, Green and Healthy Schools. Funding is for coordinating
       expertise and efforts across programs  to provide technical  assistance,  develop  and
       implement tools and models, and support communication and outreach. These resources
       include $290.0 in associated payroll and 2.0 FTE.

    •   (+$870.07+6.0 FTE) This increase reflects the Agency's strategy to focus on children's
       health in Agency regulatory action and on outreach and coordination on children's health
       actions with federal, state and local government agencies. These resources include $870.0
       in associated payroll and 6.0 FTE.

    •   (-$27.0) This  reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

EO 13045; Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Food Quality  Protection Act of
1996; Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments Of 1996.
                                           414

-------
                                                              Environmental Education
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                                     Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,038.0
$9,038.0
17.6
FY 2010
Actuals
$7,396.6
$7,396.6
14.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$9,038.0
$9,038.0
17.6
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$9,885.0
$9,885.0
18.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$847.0
$847.0
0.9
Program Project Description:

This program ensures that Environmental Education (EE), based on sound science and effective
education  practices, is used as a tool to promote  the protection  of human health  and the
environment, and to encourage student academic achievement.   Environmental Education is
fundamental to EPA's  mission and  cross-cutting priorities in that it teaches the public about
choices and environmental stewardship to produce the next generation of environmentally
literate citizens and stewards, and generate support for environmental policy.

The National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) provides a foundation for the activities that
the Agency  conducts.   EPA EE programs  support NEEA, provide leadership and support and
work in partnership with K-12 schools, colleges and universities, federal and state agencies, and
community organizations to assess needs,  establish priorities, and leverage resources.  EPA's
environmental education program  encompasses education programs and activities that support
EPA's strategic  goals  and priorities. A OneEPA approach to education coordinates Agency
education  activities  to  help conserve resources, avoid  duplication, and builds upon efforts to
increase intra-agency collaboration in support of EPA's goals  and priorities.  Early examples of
this collaboration were in the publication of EPA's 2009 Environmental Education Highlights
report, which provided an inventory of education activities and accomplishments across EPA,
and the subsequent establishment of an EPA intra-agency Environmental Education Workgroup
composed of EPA staff in headquarters and regions in September 2010.  In addition to intra-
agency  coordination,   OneEPA  education activities  also  involve  inclusion  of  education
components  in existing EPA grant programs, education for the general public on their role in
rulemaking,  integration of education elements in coordinated roll-out of programs, and policies
and rules.  Environmental Education activities are also consistent with the Agency's efforts to
promote education in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics nationally.

Please see the program website for additional information (www.epa.gov/enviroed).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  a resource level of $9.88 million and 18.5 FTE support Environmental Education.
                                          415

-------
Major programs and activities to be implemented with FY 2012 resources include:

   •   National Environmental Education Grant program;

   •   National Educator Training program;

   •   Environmental Education Awards;

   •   Managing the National Environmental Education Advisory Council;

   •   Providing funding to the National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF);

   •   Inter and intra-agency  OneEPA  coordination: providing technical  assistance, funding,
       and coordination  to  improve Environmental  Education across EPA and  the  federal
       government;

   •   In FY 2012, EPA also will fund single and multi-media initiatives that include climate
       change education  and OneEPA activities including intra-agency coordination, inclusion
       of  education components in existing  EPA  grant programs,  EPA Eco-ambassadors
       program that focuses on environmental education  on college campuses, and faith and
       neighborhood partnerships; participation in national  community-focused  conferences,
       education for the  general public on their role in rulemaking,  integration of education
       elements  in coordinated roll-out of programs,  policies  and  rules, and inclusion of
       education in web and social-media initiatives.

Performance Targets:

Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in  Thousands):

   •   (+$442.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (+$210.07+2.0 FTE)  This increase will support Environmental Education administrative
       activities. The additional resources include 2.0 FTE, and $210.0 in associated payroll.

   •   (-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$248.0) This reflects  a net  change in resources as a result of a reduction of $843.0 in
       associated payroll to fund $1,091.0 in non-payroll expenses.  The  $843.0  decrease in
       payroll was for the Agency to remain within the 25  percent statutory requirement for
       program operations. These non-payroll resources are necessary to support EE activities
       under section 4 of the NEEA, which include climate change education and One EPA
                                          416

-------
       activities including intra-agency coordination and incorporating education components in
       existing EPA grant programs.

    •   (-$3.0) This  decrease  in  travel costs  reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$50.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to  redesign processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

National Environmental Education Act (PL 101-619); Section 103 of the Clean Air Act; Section
104 of the Clean Water Act; Section 8001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act; Section 1442 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act; Section  10 of the  Toxic  Substances  Control  Act;  Section 20  of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
                                           417

-------
                                    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
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$51,944.0
$51,944.0
364.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$52,787.0
$52,787.0
354.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$51,944.0
$51,944.0
364.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$52,268.0
$52,268.0
357.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$324.0
$324.0
-6.7
Program/Project Description:

The  Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Relations program provides resources to
several headquarters and Regional offices that help EPA to meet its commitments to protect
human health and the environment.  The  activities include support for the Offices of the
Administrator and Regional Administrators, as well as Headquarters and Regional support for
Congressional,  Legislative, and Intergovernmental activities associated with  responding to
Congressional requests for information and providing written and oral testimony,  briefings, and
briefing materials, as well as outreach and coordination to state and local governments; public
affairs;  program  and  program  management  services; correspondence  control;  and  the
management of EPA's Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The   Immediate   Offices  of  the Administrator,  Deputy  Administrator,  and  Regional
Administrators  provide  leadership  and  direction for EPA's programs  and  activities.  The
Immediate  Offices provide the leadership,  guidance, and  direction  necessary to ensure the
achievement  of the Agency's strategic goals  and the Administrator's  priorities.  Agency
leadership also provides  an important link to other government policy makers, states, tribes and
the public by communicating Agency proposals, actions, policy, data, research, and information
through mass media, print publications, and via the Web. (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office
of the Administrator and Deputy Administrator will be  funded at a level of $6.78 million and
44.4 FTE.)

The  Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) in headquarters and the
Regional offices lead EPA's interactions with Congress, Governors, and other state and  local
officials. In FY 2012, these offices will prepare  EPA officials for hearings and meetings with
members of  Congress,  oversee responses to written inquiries  from  members  of Congress,
coordinate and provide technical assistance and briefings to  members  of Congress and staff on
                                          418

-------
legislative areas of interest; and coordinate with the White House's Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Council for Environmental Quality.

The Agency's state and local relations staff will serve as the Agency's liaison to state and local
government officials  and  will  manage the  Administrator's  Local  Government  Advisory
Committee (LGAC) and the Small Community Advisory Committee (SCAC). These activities
will help to ensure that EPA's policies and regulations consider specific impacts on state and
local governments. The office also will work closely with program offices to more fully integrate
the National  Environmental Performance Partnerships  System  (NEPPS) framework  and
principles into the Agency's core business practices. NEPPS is a performance-based  system of
environmental protection designed to  improve the efficiency and  effectiveness of state-EPA
partnerships.  By focusing EPA and state resources on the most pressing environmental problems
and taking advantage  of the unique capacities of each partner,  performance partnerships may
help achieve the greatest environmental and human  health protection.    (In  FY 2012, the
headquarters Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations will be funded at a level
of $6.72 million and 48.3 FTE.)

In FY 2012, EPA is requesting resources for its Representation fund to host  the triennial
Commission  for Environmental  Cooperation (CEC) conference,  which  is an  international
organization, created by Canada,  Mexico, and the United States. The CEC was established to
address regional  environmental  concerns,  help  prevent  potential trade  and  environmental
conflicts, and to promote the effective enforcement of environmental law.  This is a week long
session that includes  participation by each government delegation  and by  the public. The US
hosts the event every three years.

The Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (OFACMO) formerly the
Office of Cooperative  Environmental Management (OCEM), creates uniform  policy  and
guidance and  has oversight responsibility for the Agency's FACA committee  management
process.  It surveys committee members and stakeholders, identifies and shares best  practices,
and provides training to Agency Designated Federal Officers (DFOs), committee Chairpersons,
and committee members. This work will ensure that EPA's 50 federal advisory committees
(FACs) and sub-committees are  in compliance  with FACA requirements  and administrative
guidelines  provided   by  the General  Services  Administration's Committee Management
Secretariat.  In FY 2012,  OFACMO will conduct comprehensive "oversight/assist" visits to
ensure that  EPA's federal  advisory committees comply  with  notice,  open meeting, public
document, and record  keeping requirements. These visits will help reduce practices that expose
the committees to legal challenges  and vulnerability. In addition, this Office is  responsible for
managing five FACs: the  Good  Neighbor  Environmental Board, the  National  Advisory
Committee,  the Governmental  Advisory  Committee,  the National  Advisory  Council for
Environmental  Policy and  Technology,  and the  Farm,  Ranch  and Rural  Communities
Committee.

In FY 2012, OFACMO also will  implement  a  strategic outreach  initiative to environmental
justice and  science-based  groups,  schools  and  organizations to increase the  number of
underrepresented and  underserved  communities  on EPA's federal advisory committees.  An
enhanced pool will allow DFOs and program offices to bring sorely  needed expertise to existing
                                          419

-------
committees from individuals, communities and groups that have traditionally been underserved
and/or underutilized on EPA's committees.  Such an approach will allow the Agency to have
balanced, diverse points of views, a key component of the FACA process. OFACMO will create
and maintain a pool  of diverse candidates in a central "diversity"  database that will  be a key
resource for the Agency's advisory committees. Further, the program will visit regional offices
to brief managers and staff on the benefits advisory committees bring to their programs.

To strengthen its public participation function, OFACMO will implement a plan to expand the
conversation on environmentalism.  This will include integrating new  technologies,  including
videoconferencing, webcasting, and other forms of social media, with other communication and
outreach efforts.  By using these  tools, OFACMO  can  ensure  links between EPA's federal
advisory committees.  Moreover,  it will allow the Office  to  hold public meetings,  attend
conferences, and form  partnerships with Minority Academic Institutions, the National Science
Foundation, and other science/policy based organizations.  (In FY 2012,  the headquarters Office
of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach will  be funded  at a level of $2.05
million and ll.OFTE.)

The Office of External  Affairs and Environmental Education (OEAEE)  (formerly the  Office of
Public Affairs and the Office of Environmental Education, respectively)  leads EPA in providing
a consistent, transparent flow of  information from  the  Agency's  headquarters and  regional
offices to the public, the media, federal,  state and local government entities and stakeholders. In
FY 2012, EPA's headquarters and Regional Offices of External Affairs will  take full advantage
of multimedia and Web applications to reach international and domestic audiences and provide
local, state and tribal governments access to timely, coherent, and comprehensive information on
the Agency's activities and policies. The offices will strive to increase the  public's awareness
and understanding of health and environmental issues that touch their lives, and shed light on
social, technological  and scientific solutions. External affairs will utilize traditional and social
media, website, and other innovative  channels like webcasting and video casting  to reach
students, diverse communities, multilingual populations and audiences that have not historically
participated in the conversation on environmental issues.  Environmental Education's  resources
and activities are included  under  the  Environmental Education program.  (In FY 2012, the
headquarters Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education will be  funded at  a level of
$14.79 million and 53.3 FTE.)

As the central administrative management component of the Office of the Administrator (OA),
the  Office  of Executive  Services (OES)  provides advice, tools, and  assistance for the
organization's programmatic operations including human resources management, budget and
financial management,  and  information technology management and security.  In FY 2012,
Executive Services will  continue to manage the utilization  of  OA's  resources,  improve the
tracking and projecting of payroll  utilization to ensure sound management, and  achieve cost
savings wherever possible.   OES also will assist other organizations by creating cost-effective
information technology solutions (i.e., database systems), prepare  studies to help assess resource
needs, oversee the office's Working Capital fund, and prepare organizational, administrative and
personnel  materials. (In FY 2012, the headquarters Office of Executive  Services will be funded
at a level of $3.35 million and 20.8 FTE.)
                                          420

-------
The  Executive Secretariat  (OEX) serves as the correspondence,  records  management,  and
Freedom of Information Act hubs  of the  Office of the Administrator,  managing  executive
correspondence,  overseeing the FOIA process, maintaining the Administrator's and Deputy
Administrator's records, ensuring that OA meets its records management responsibilities, and
managing the  Correspondence Management System, a  major Agency information technology
application. In FY 2012, OEX  will continue to  assist  staff, program, and regional  offices in
implementing paperless  and web-based technologies for correspondence, records management,
and FOIA processing, assuring greater efficiency, improved accountability, and reduced  cost
(e.g., physical records storage at the Federal Records Center). (In FY 2012, the headquarters
Office of Executive Secretariat will be funded at a level of $1.93 million and 13.5 FTE.)

Performance Targets:

Work under  this program  supports multiple strategic objectives.   Currently, there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$381.0) This increase  reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-6.7) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.

   •   (-$57.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative  targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA  will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (+$319.0) This reflects realignments  and  corrections to resources  for telephone, Local
       Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

   •   (+$10.0)  This reflects an increase for the Administrator's Representational Fund to  host
       the Commission  for Environmental Cooperation (CEC),  which takes place every three
       years.

   •   (-$329.0) This decrease  in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

As provided  in  Appropriations Act funding; FACA;  EAIA; NAFTA Implementation  Act;
RLBPHRA; NAAED; LPA-US/MX-BR; CERCLA.
                                          421

-------
                                                                      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 2010
Enacted
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$18,457.0
24.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$17,918.5
$1,438.6
$19,357.1
28.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$18,457.0
24.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$20,883.0
$1,433.0
$22,316.0
30.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,859.0
$0.0
$3,859.0
6.4
Program Project Description:

EPA and state,  tribal  and  territorial  partners  reap  tremendous  data management  and
environmental  benefits from  the National  Environmental  Information  Exchange  Network
(Network, EN).  The EN is a standards-based, secure information partnership with states, tribes
and other entities to facilitate and streamline electronic reporting, sharing, integration, analysis,
and use of environmental data from many different sources.
	                        CO
The Central Data Exchange  (CDX) is the largest component within the EN program.  CDX is
the portal, or electronic gateway, through which  environmental  data  enters the Agency.  It
enables fast,  efficient and more accurate environmental data  submissions from  state and local
governments, industry and tribes to EPA.  It  also provides a set of core services for the entire
Agency, rather than each Agency program building its own duplicative services. The reuse of
existing central services  like  CDX  promotes  a  leaner  and  more cost-effective enterprise
architecture for the Agency, enables more robust central services and  provides a common way to
promote data integration and sharing with states  since CDX serves as EPA's connection to the
EN.   The CDX  budget  supports infrastructure  for development, testing  and  production;
sophisticated hardware and software; data exchange and Web form programs; built-in data
quality  checks; standards-setting  projects with  states,  tribes and territories  for electronic
reporting; and  significant security and quality assurance activities.   By reducing  the IT data
management burden  on  EPA  programs,  CDX helps environmental  programs  focus  their
resources on enforcement and programmatic work, rather than data collection and manipulation.

Other tools and services in the EN program include the Facility Registry System (FRS) and the
System  of Registries (SoR). The FRS is a widely used source of mapping and environmental
data about facilities. It allows a multimedia display and integration of environmental  information
  For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
                                           422

-------
keyed to a single or multiple facilities. It offers enormous benefits for enforcement targeting,
homeland security and data integration among disparate datasets as well as a key point of entry
for the  public interested in EPA's data  stores.   The SoR adds meaning to  EPA's  data and
promotes access,  sharing and understanding of it.  The SoR helps environmental professionals
and the public find systems where data is stored, and ensures that those sources are identified and
authentic, and that names, definitions and concepts are available and understandable.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will develop services that encourage innovative data sharing and analysis while
reducing the cost and burden of reporting.   The program  will pilot projects that move the
Network from a closed partnership of states, tribes and EPA to a more open platform of services
that the public or third parties can use to develop tools and applications to make environmental
data reporting, sharing,  and analysis faster,  simpler and cheaper.  The EN program  also will
increase the amount of critical environmental data flowing,  expand the program's role in sharing
data among partners, provide increased business value through reduced burden and build on prior
efforts  to provide better  data quality, timeliness and accessibility  while  making the  Network
simpler and less costly to implement.  Finally, pending the results of research in 2011, CDX will
move to a  public or private "cloud"  in order to  save money and gain added  efficiency for  its
customers.

EPA continues to leverage the  EN  to achieve  Agency goals and  priorities  while increasing
efficiency.  Success stories include  the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)  State Data Exchange
(SDX) which has significantly reduced the burden both for reporting facilities and for states.
Prior to the EN, facilities had to report data both to EPA and to the State.  SDX eliminates the
need for facilities to report twice. Furthermore,  states now receive this data instantly from EPA
and it is automatically placed in their information systems, dramatically reducing state costs to
manage this data. While starting primarily with  states, Network partnerships have expanded to
include a broader range of participants.  Examples include sharing data about the Chesapeake
Bay among all levels of participating governments and a central tribal information hub hosted  by
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for water quality data reporting and sharing.

In FY 2012, EPA  expects to begin full development  of at least one to two of the required
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) data exchanges. ACE is the Customs and Border
Protection's commercial trade processing system designed  to automate border  cargo processing
and enhance border security.  Once in production, EPA will be able to demonstrate and promote
broader reuse of its  successful ACE data exchange across other federal agencies exchanging data
with ACE.  EPA will  provide its technology and approaches to other interested federal agencies
for installation and operation.

In FY 2012, CDX will continue to support the Office of Transportation of Air Quality (OTAQ)
in implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard through several interconnected systems.  The
systems include the OTAQ Registration system, OTAQ Fuels Reporting System, and the EPA
Moderated Transaction System (EMTS). EMTS is a unique industry government partnership
that reduces burden and improves efficiency for industry by providing an electronic marketplace
                                           423

-------
for transactions of Renewable Identification Numbers as well as traditional computer to
computer electronic reporting.

CDX will  also increase electronic reporting to EPA  by  meeting several  new reporting
requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Planned activities in FY 2012 for the System of Registries will continue efforts to allow greater
sharing and better understanding of EPA's data, including:

   •   The  Substance Registry  Services  will continue  to  catalog  all  chemicals  and  other
       substances that are tracked or regulated at EPA.

   •   The Registry of EPA Applications and Databases (READ) inventories EPA data systems.

   •   The Reusable Component Services (RCS) is a developers' catalog of services (e.g, Web
       services, XML schema, code libraries) that promotes cost savings  and reuse not just at
       EPA but across the Exchange Network with states and tribes.

   •   The Data Registry Services (DRS) is a central repository for data dictionaries and code
       sets that help system management, align data among  different  systems and ensure
       conformance to data standards.

   •   Terminology  Services (TS) is the Agency's catalog  of terms (e.g., gray  water,  climate
       change) and vocabularies to support better understanding of data and linking data that
       might not otherwise be connected in order to promote better analysis and access.

In FY 2012, the EN program will support the  Agency's  Regaining Ground  in Compliance
initiative by expanding the  use of the Network. EPA will create an open platform "electronic
reporting file" data exchange standard,  modeled after that used by  the IRS to collect tax data.
The intent is to unleash  the expertise of the private sector marketplace to create new electronic
reporting tools for three National Pollution Discharge Elimination  System data flows.  These
private sector  electronic reporting tools would be based on EPA and Exchange Network data
standards and  protocols and would replace the  largely paper-based reporting systems that
evolved over the past 30 years.   Further, in those programs  where EPA has already built
electronic reporting tools, the private sector may enhance these tools to better support industry
needs, enabling EPA largely to  eliminate the need  to  continue  to fund  the  operation and
maintenance of these tools.

Through the Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, the Agency will be adding a number of
electronic submissions to EPA through  rulemakings in any media, such as  air, water, toxics and
pesticides.   New e-File goals of  faster, easier compliance submissions to EPA will  be met,
providing technical  assistance and guidance to the  vendor  community  and,   internally,
enhancements  that will be needed to the EN and CDX technologies.  Examples include technical
assistance with standards,  guidelines  and  procedures,  data delivery protocols and  internal
enhancements  to  EN services such as  user registration.  An Agency help desk will  also be
necessary to support the vendor  community to  ensure compliance and  interoperability with
                                          424

-------
Agency requirements.  EN technologies also will support large industry partners that want to
submit data directly from their enterprise resource systems to EPA.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(052) Number of major
EPA environmental
systems that use the
CDX electronic
requirements enabling
faster receipt,
processing, and quality
checking of data.
FY 2010
Target



60



FY 2010
Actual



60



FY2011
CR
Target



60



FY 2012
Target



72



Units



Systems



Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(053) States, tribes and
territories will be able
to exchange data with
CDX through nodes in
real time, using
standards and
automated data-quality
checking.
FY 2010
Target



65



FY 2010
Actual



69



FY2011
CR
Target



65



FY 2012
Target



80



Units



Users



Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(054) Number of users
from states, tribes,
laboratories, and others
that choose CDX to
report environmental
data electronically to
EPA.
FY 2010
Target



210,000



FY 2010
Actual



231,700



FY2011
CR
Target



210,000



FY 2012
Target



215,000



Units



Users



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$118.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (- 0.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.
                                          425

-------
    •   (+$3,408.07+1.0 FTE)  This increase will support  the Agency's  efforts to modernize
       compliance reporting and monitoring as part of the Regaining Ground in Compliance
       initiative.  EPA will enhance the electronic reporting capabilities through the Network
       and CDX  environmental data technologies.   The additional resources include $158.0
       associated payroll for 1.0 FTE.

    •   (+$948.07+6.0 FTE) This increase reflects a realignment of FTE and associated payroll
       from IT/Data Management. This shift more  accurately reflects the work already being
       done.

    •   (-$615.0) This reflects  efficiency gains from consolidating a portion of the Envirofacts
       data warehouse, the Facility Registry System, and the Systems of Registries into a single
       operation under one Federal manager.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq.  and Government Information
Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536
and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and  Liability Act (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. 9606 et seq. - Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401  et seq. - Sections  102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. -  Sections 101,  102, 103, 104, 105, 107,  and 109 and Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. - Sections  201, 301 and 401 and Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. - Sections 136a - 136y
and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. - Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501
and Safe Drinking Water Act  (SOWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C.  300 et seq. - Sections 1400,
1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441, 1454 and 1461  and  Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community  Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. - Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. - Sections 1001, 2001,  3001 and 3005 and
Government Performance and  Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803  et seq. - Sections 1115,
1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501
et seq. - Sections 101,  201, 301, 401,  402, 403,  404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40
U.S.C. 1401 et  seq. - Sections 5001,  5201, 5301, 5401,  5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. - Sections 104, 105,  106, 107, 108, 109,  110, 111,
112 and  113 and  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.  552 et  seq and Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. -  Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961;
Privacy  Act; Electronic  Freedom of Information Act, Security and Accountability  of Every
(SAFE) Port Act,  Executive  Order 13439.  Exchange Network Program  funding has been
provided by the  annual appropriations for EPA: 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 2006
(Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), and FY
2009 (Public Law 111-8).
                                         426

-------
                                                           Small Business Ombudsman
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                            Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,028.0
$3,028.0
10.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$3,488.5
$3,488.5
8.1
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$3,028.0
$3,028.0
10.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$2,953.0
$2,953.0
9.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($75.0)
($75.0)
-0.7
Program Project Description:

The Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman (ASBO), a component of the Office of Small
Business Programs,  serves as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) leading advocate
for small business regulatory issues. The ASBO reaches out to the small business community by
partnering with state Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAPs) nationwide
and hundreds of small business trade associations.  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.
59
The core ASBO functions include participating in the regulatory development process, operating
and supporting the program's hotline and homepage, participating in EPA program and regional
offices'  small business related meetings, and supporting internal and external  small business
activities.  The ASBO helps small businesses learn about new EPA actions and developments,
and helps EPA learn about the concerns and needs of small businesses.  The ASBO 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 ASBO
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. In addition,  the Office of Policy's
Sustainable Communities program helps small businesses effectively compete in neighborhood
retail markets.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Asbestos and Small Business Ombudsman program will continue to:

   •   Support and promote EPA's Small Business Strategy by encouraging small businesses,
       states, and trade associations to  comment on EPA's proposed regulatory actions, as well
59 Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sbo
                                         427

-------
       as providing updates on the Agency's rulemaking activities in the quarterly Smallbiz@
       EPA electronic bulletin.

   •   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.gov. Business.gov is an official  site of the U.S.  Government that helps small
       businesses  understand   their legal requirements,   and  locate government  services
       supporting the nation's small business community.  This work helps to improve services
       and reduces the burden on small businesses by guiding them through government rules
       and regulations.  EPA  also  will  support and  promote a state-led  multi-media small
       business initiative and coordinate efforts within the Agency.

   •   Strengthen  and support partnerships with  state Small Business  SBEAP's and  trade
       associations, and recognize 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.

   •   Use lean manufacturing, which is a business model and collection of methods that help
       eliminate waste while delivering quality products on time and at least cost. Building on
       the  current efforts will  help to develop and coordinate EPA's  policies  and strategies
       related to  sustainable manufacturing.   This effort will  involve working with EPA's
       program and regional partners, as well as the Departments of Commerce and Energy on a
       multi-agency initiative to demonstrate successes  in sustainable production.

   •   Work with partners  in EPA's programs  and regions to  lead and  coordinate Agency
       policies and strategies on green workforce development.

   •   Provide technical assistance and coordination to other federal and state departments and
       agencies  -  as well  as  other  external  organizations - to  promote green  workforce
       development in key sectors that are critical to meeting EPA's goals.

Under this program, resources of $1.68 million and  4.7 FTE  support the  Office of Small
Business Programs. The remaining $1.27 million and 4.6 FTE in this program support the Office
of Policy, Office of Sustainable Communities' activities related to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports  EPA's Goal  4: Ensuring the  Safety  of Chemicals  and
Preventing  Pollution,  Objective 2:  Promote Pollution Prevention.  Currently,  there  are  no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
                                          428

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$31.0) This decrease reflects a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
       costs for existing FTE.

    •   (- 0.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$27.0)  This reflects  a minor  decrease to contract resources for outreach  due to
       efficiencies realized by  partnering with other EPA offices and  programs to meet this
       need.

    •   (-$8.0) This  decrease in travel  costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$9.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes and streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CAAA, section 507.
                                           429

-------
                                                    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 2010
Enacted
$2,350.0
$2,350.0
9.8
FY 2010
Actuals
$2,133.1
$2,133.1
9.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$2,350.0
$2,350.0
9.8
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$2,280.0
$2,280.0
9.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($70.0)
($70.0)
-0.2
Program Project Description:

The Agency's Small Minority Business Program encompasses the Agency's Office of Small
Business Programs' (OSBP) Direct Procurement, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), and
Minority Academic Institutions (MAI) programs.  This program provides technical assistance to
small  businesses as well as  headquarters and Regional offices employees, to ensure that small,
disadvantaged, women-owned, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), service-
disabled veteran-owned small  businesses (SDVOSBs), and MAIs receive a fair share of EPA's
procurement dollars and grants, where applicable.  This program enhances the ability of these
businesses to participate in the protection of human health and the environment.  The functions
involve 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 comply with federal  laws and
regulations regarding the utilization of small and disadvantaged businesses,  direct procurement
acquisitions, indirect procurement assistance, and  further the policies and mandates of Executive
Orders associated with the MAI program.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, under the Agency's OSBP Direct Procurement program, small and disadvantaged
business procurement experts will  continue to provide assistance to headquarters and Regional
program  office personnel  and small  business  owners to ensure that small disadvantaged
businesses  (SDBs),  Women-Owned  Small Businesses  (WOSBs),  HUBZone firms, and
SDVOSBs  receive a fair share of EPA's procurement dollars.  EPA negotiates  a number of
national goals with the Small Business Administration (SBA) every  two years,  which are
targeted at increasing opportunities for the above mentioned categories of small businesses. (In
FY 2012, the funding for the Small Minority Business Assistance Program is $2.28 million and
9.6 FTE).
                                         430

-------
In FY 2012, EPA continues to work to eliminate unnecessary contract bundling to help ensure
opportunities for America's small business community.  Contract bundling requires  certain
conditions to obtain contracts that small businesses cannot provide because of their size.  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 also
will emphasize contracting with  SDVOSBs,  as mandated by Executive  Order 13360, which
requires increased federal contracting opportunities for this group of entrepreneurs.

Under its DBE Program, EPA has a statutory goal often percent utilization of Minority Business
Enterprises/Women-Owned Business Enterprises for research conducted under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, as well as a statutory eight percent goal for all other programs.  The DBE
program encourages the Agency  and  its financial  assistance  recipients to meet these  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 while creating more
jobs. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995),
EPA promulgated the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Rule (40 CFR Part  33). EPA
will continue implementation of the DBE Rule, which requires EPA grant recipients to perform
good faith efforts to  ensure that DBEs have an opportunity to compete for contracts  funded by
EPA assistance agreements.

Under its MAI program, the Agency develops  strategies,  collects  data, provides technical
assistance, and  produces reports on its efforts  to meet the initiatives of Executive Order 13216,
Increase Participation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Federal Programs;  Executive
Order  13230,  President's  Advisory  Commission on  Educational  Excellence  for Hispanic
Americans;  Executive Order  13256, President's  Board of  Advisors  on Historically Black
Colleges and  Universities  (HBCUs);  and  Executive  Order 13270,  Tribal  Colleges  and
Universities (TCUs).

Performance Targets:

Work under  this program  supports multiple strategic  objectives.   Currently,  there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$18.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a  realignment of total FTEs to better reflect  utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$8.0)  This decrease  in  travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          431

-------
   •   (-$28.0)  This reflects a  minor  decrease  to  contract  resources  for  outreach due  to
       efficiencies realized by partnering with  other EPA offices and programs to meet this
       need.

   •   (-$16.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue  its
       work  to  redesign  processes and   streamline  activities in  both  administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Small Business Act, sections  8  and 15,  as  amended; Executive Orders 12073, 12432,  12138,
13256, 13270, 13230, 13360 and 13216; P.L. 106-50; CAA.
                                           432

-------
                                            State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
                                            Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$13,303.0
$13,303.0
57.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$13,426. 7
$13,426.7
51.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$13,303.0
$13,303.0
57.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$14,613.0
$14,613.0
59.8
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,310.0
$1,310.0
1.9
Program Project Description

EPA works with state, local, and tribal 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.  RMPs also  are sent
to state  and local emergency planning entities as well as the  Chemical Safety Board,  and are
made available to the public at federal reading rooms.

The RMP describes the hazards of the chemicals used by the facility, the potential consequences
of worst case and other accidental release scenarios, the facility's 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 changes are made at the facility.

The  Clean Air Act also requires  EPA to conduct audits  and  inspections at RMP facilities to
ensure their compliance with the regulations. EPA conducts on-site inspections at more than 500
facilities annually, and takes enforcement actions where inspections and audits reveal significant
non-compliance. EPA has identified 13,100 RMP facilities nationwide.  Of these, approximately
1,900 facilities have been designated as "high risk" based upon their accident history, quantity of
chemicals on site and proximity to large residential populations.

Under the Emergency  Planning and  Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),  the  Agency
works with state, local, and tribal partners to help them develop and implement emergency plans
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 about local facilities, as well as helping them understand 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
                                          433

-------
(CAMEO) software suite.  With this  information  and these tools, communities are better
prepared to reduce and mitigate hazardous chemical releases that may occur. EPA also conducts
inspections at facilities subject to EPCRA to ensure they  comply with the statute's  chemical
inventory reporting and emergency release notification provisions.

EPA also assists the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as other federal agencies
and state, tribal, and local partners by providing updated copies of the RMP database, analytical
support,  and  ongoing  technical  support  for integration   of RMP and  EPCRA tools and
information.  In addition, EPA conducts analyses of RMP  data to identify regulated  facilities,
chemical accident trends,  and industrial sectors that may be more accident-prone, to  gain
knowledge on the effectiveness of risk management measures.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Recent accidents at chemical facilities have resulted in injury and death, severe environmental
damage,  and great financial loss.  Accidents reported to EPA by the current universe of Risk
Management Program  (RMP) facilities  have resulted in over 40 worker  deaths, nearly  1,500
worker injuries, more than 300,000 people sheltered in place, and more than $1  billion in on-site
and off-site damages for the current universe of facilities.  States and communities often lack the
strong infrastructure needed to address these emergencies or to prevent them from happening in
the first place.

Despite the growing need, the number of RMP facility inspections has historically been low, as
resource  and staffing levels are limited for this program.  Further, as high-risk chemical facilities
(such as petroleum refineries) are usually the largest and most difficult facilities to inspect, these
facilities  had historically been inspected at an even lower rate. EPA has already  shifted resources
toward high risk facility inspections, but additional staff and funding is needed to increase the
number and frequency of these inspections.

In FY 2012, as part of the Agency's Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, EPA requests an
increase to its chemical accident prevention and emergency planning programs in order  to reduce
risks at high risk chemical facilities.  EPA leadership  has focused attention  on identifying where
the most  significant vulnerabilities exist,  in terms of scale and potential risk.  The nation has seen
too many examples in the last two years of the consequences of insufficient regulatory oversight.
These resources will be devoted to inspections conducted at high risk facilities in order to find
and address problems before they become disasters.

Using these additional  resources, EPA will increase the rate of inspections  at high risk facilities
to 149 per year (from the FY 2011 rate of 142 per year), while maintaining its  current rate of
inspection for non-high risk RMP facilities.  The FY 2012 target assumes there is a lag time in
the hiring and training of new inspectors.

In FY 2012, EPA  will  continue  its ongoing implementation of the base program by improving
other aspects of the chemical  accident prevention and emergency response  programs.  EPA will
provide  national  coordination  for  chemical accident prevention  and  emergency  response
planning program  policy, inspections,  compliance,  and   enforcement.   Activities include
                                           434

-------
developing and updating program policies and procedures, conducting program oversight and
monitoring,  continuing support for  the CAMEO  system,  and continued  efforts to strengthen
identification of facilities that did not file RMPs.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(CH2) Number of risk
management plan
audits and inspections
conducted.

FY 2010
Target

400


FY 2010
Actual

618

FY2011
CR
Target

560


FY 2012
Target

578


Units

Audits

In FY 2012,  EPA will conduct at least 578 RMP facility inspections, including  at least 149
inspections at high-risk facilities.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$312.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce  costs for  existing
       FTE.

   •   (-3.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$1,000.07 +5.0  FTE)  This  reflects an  increase as  part of the Agency's Regaining
       Ground investment with additional resources devoted to  more inspections conducted at
       high risk facilities. This includes 5.0 FTE and associated payroll of $680.0.

   •   (+$28.0)  This reflects an increase in non-pay base resources.

   •   (-$30.0)  This decrease  in travel costs  reflects an effort to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.  11001 et seq. -
Sections 11001-11023 and the  Clean  Air Act, as amended by the Chemical Safety  Information,
Site Security,  and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Section 112(r).
                                          435

-------
                                                                    TRI / Right to Know
                                            Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$14,933.0
$14,933.0
43.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$15,230.9
$15,230.9
46.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$14,933.0
$14,933.0
43.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$16,463.0
$16,463.0
50.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,530.0
$1,530.0
7.1
Program Project Description:

High quality, readily available and useable data serves as a strategic resource that supports the
Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment.  Environmental information
programs support the Administration's goals  of transparency, participation, engagement and
collaboration to expand the conversation on environmentalism. The Toxics Release Inventory60
(TRI) Program reliably provides the  public with information on  releases for over 650 toxic
chemicals from certain classes of industrial facilities.  TRI is the Agency's  only multi-media,
integrated provider  of such information to the public.  Each year, the  TRI Program receives
facility-submitted data on toxic chemical releases and transfers, maintains the data in a database
and makes the data readily available to the public.

Due to the scope and timeliness of the data,  TRI  is a premier source of information for
community right-to-know groups, and it fulfills the Agency's statutory responsibilities under
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act  of 1986 (EPCRA)
and Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA).  The TRI data is used by many
individuals and  organizations - including environmental  and community  groups,  academic
institutions, the financial  community,  industrial  facilities,  government  agencies  and the
international community - to find out about toxic chemical releases at the local level, to  ensure
compliance with environmental laws and regulations and to encourage pollution prevention and
source reduction activities by industrial facilities.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The regulatory foundation for the TRI Program ensures that communities have access to  timely
and meaningful information on toxic chemical releases in their neighborhoods.  To strengthen
this foundation, the program will  take steps in FY 2012 to clarify the TRI reporting requirements
for specific industries as needed (e.g., metal mining facilities),  and to propose selected chemicals
(e.g., chemicals listed in the Agency's Chemical Action Plans) to the list of toxic chemicals that
 1 For more information on the Toxics Release Inventory, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/tri/.
                                           436

-------
are reported under TRI.  In addition, the program will consider whether to regulate additional
industry sectors under TRI and/or to require TRI reporting by individual facilities of concern.

TRI will continue to work closely with EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program
to evaluate potential  data quality  issues concerning facility TRI submissions and to support
compliance  assistance and  enforcement efforts.   Strong coordination of  programmatic  and
enforcement efforts will continue to be essential  in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of
the TRI data.

TRI will continue to encourage facility reporters to submit their TRI reports electronically using
the online TRI-MEweb application and EPA's Central  Data Exchange (CDX).  TRI-MEweb
includes certain pre-populated data  fields, as well as a number of automated data quality checks,
which  help facilities  submit accurate reports more  easily.   In addition, TRI will continue to
encourage states to join the  TRI State Data Exchange, which makes it possible for facilities in
participating  states to submit their federal and  state TRI reports simultaneously rather than
separately, thereby reducing their reporting burden.   Also, TRI will continue outreach efforts.
The TRI National  Training Conference is our premier outreach effort for connecting with non-
governmental organizations, Industry Trade Associations and other parties interested in the TRI
program.  We also contact  all  TRI reporters annually to  educate them on the  new reporting
requirements and tools.

By July 1st  of each  year, reporting  facilities must submit their  TRI reports to EPA for the
previous calendar year.  In FY 2012, the TRI Program will continue providing public access to
the TRI data as quickly as possible through downloadable data files (available on the TRI Web
site, with links from Data.gov), analytical tools such as TRI Explorer and Envirofacts, and/or
data publishing services. TRI will  work to enhance the analytical capabilities available to data
users and to provide more hazard-based information to help make the data more meaningful and
useful to a wide range of data users.

The TRI Program  will continue to  work with outside organizations, such as the Environmental
Council of the States, to foster stakeholder discussions and collaboration on the analysis, use and
application of TRI data (e.g., through  the ChemicalRight2Know.org Web  site and the TRI
National  Training Conference).  At the same  time,  TRI will work  with  others to promote
corporate accountability and environmental stewardship.  The program will continue to provide
access  to TRI data at both the individual facility level and the corporate  level.   TRI also will
continue to highlight TRI data on pollution prevention and best management practices.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program  supports multiple strategic  objectives.   Currently,  there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$403.0)  This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.
                                          437

-------
   •   (-1.1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$1,177.0 / +8.2 FTE) This change is a realignment of resources, including shifting 8.2
       FTE and $1,148 associated payroll, from the IT/Data  Management program to the TRI
       program to reflect current efforts being  performed for  TRI. These efforts include the
       assessment  of 360 chemicals to be  listed  in  the  inventory and the  development of
       community-focused tools to assist in the evaluation of toxics release data.

   •   (-$50.0) This decrease reflects  a redirection of resources  to the Human Health and
       Ecosystems program, which  funds ECOTOX, a  database for locating single chemical
       toxicity data for  aquatic life, terrestrial plants and  wildlife.  Various programs have
       contributed to this database in the past.

Statutory Authority:

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and Section 6607 of
the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA).
                                          438

-------
                                                              Tribal - Capacity Building
                                           Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                                                     Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
         Objective(s): Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$12,080.0
$12,080.0
73.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$13,040.9
$13,040.9
78.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$12,080.0
$12,080.0
73.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$15,070.0
$15,070.0
87.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,990.0
$2,990.0
14.2
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  (GAP)  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 review and
      analyze the conditions  on Indian lands and the effects of EPA and  tribal actions and
      programs on the environmental conditions;  and

    •  In FY 2012, the  American Indian Environmental  program will continue to support not
      only the efforts laid out by the GAP program, but also provide an administrative and
      oversight role for the Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2012,  EPA requests  support for  the Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program
requested in this budget.  This program is tailored to address an individual tribe's most serious
                                          439

-------
environmental needs through  the  implementation of federal  environmental  programs.  It  is
essential  that  EPA's  Tribal  Capacity Building  Program  and  the  Multi-Media Tribal
Implementation Program be  effectively harmonized so that they build upon each  other to
enhance environmental protection in Indian country and Alaskan Native Villages.

EPA's Indian Policy affirms  the principle that the  Agency  has  a government-to-government
relationship  with  tribes and that "EPA recognizes  tribes as the primary parties for setting
standards, making environmental policy decisions and  managing programs for  reservations,
consistent with agency standards and regulations."  To that end, EPA "encourage[s] and assist[s]
tribes in assuming regulatory and program management responsibilities," primarily through the
"treatment in a manner similar to a state" (TAS) processes available under several environmental
statutes.   EPA continues to  encourage tribal capacity development  to  implement federal
environmental programs,  including  the use of  Direct  Implementation  Tribal  Cooperative
Agreement (DITCA) authority.
                           Number of Tribes with TAS (cumulative)
  60-
  50-
  40
  30
  20 -
  10
     1994   1995  1996  1997  1998   1999  2000  2001
                                           2002
                                           Year
                                               2003  2004  2005   2006  2007  2008  2009   2010
Another tool in building tribal capacity is 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.

In 2005, 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 2012.  All GAP  grantees must meet the requirement, begun in  FY 2007, to submit a
standardized work plan which includes milestones and deliverables,  and links to the Agency's
strategic plan.   Standardized workplans  lead to  a better characterization of environmental and
                                          440

-------
public  health benefits  of the capacity building  activities  in  a consistent manner. EPA  has
developed  and implemented the  GAP  Online  database  as part of  the  Tribal  Program
Environmental Assessment (TPEA).  GAP Online is a web-based tool for workplan development
and reporting.   In addition, EPA will  continue developing  a framework to assist recipients in
clearly identifying key procedures  and  milestones leading to building  capacity  for  specific
programs.

EPA has a suite of secure internet-based applications that track environmental conditions  and
program implementation in Indian country, as well as other business functions.  One application,
the Tribal Program Management System  (TPMS), tracks progress in achieving the performance
targets under Goal 3 Objective 4 of EPA's FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan - "Strengthen Public
Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country" and other EPA metrics.  EPA staff use
TPMS  to establish  program performance commitments for future fiscal years  and to record
actual program performance for overall national program management. The system serves as the
performance database for all of the strategic targets, annual performance measures, and program
assessment measures.

TPEA, part of the Agency's Envirofacts system, is a multi-agency, multi-media database that is
designed to support tribal  programs  for all  tribes, as well  as  the EPA National  Program
Managers.  TPEA, accessible through the tribal portal, 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 2012,  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.

Access to information, as noted above, is a powerful tool in assisting local tribal priority setting
and decision making and is  a  major emphasis  for EPA's tribal capacity programs. EPA's
American Indian Environmental program will continue to support this  effort in  FY 2012.  See
http://www.epa.gov/Tribalportal/ for more information.

In FY 2012, EPA will  have completed and integrated  a crosswalk of tribal identifier codes to
consistently report tribal information across the EPA Databases.  The  tribal names and codes
used by EPA are identical to those used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and are developed
and maintained by the BIA  Office of Indian Services.  The names of tribes are identical to the
listing of tribes in the Federal Register. Both the names of tribes and the tribal codes have been
adopted by EPA as agency Environmental Data Standards, for adoption by all EPA data systems
                                          441

-------
that track tribal programs. For this activity, the cooperation of the BIA Office of Indian Services
is gratefully acknowledged.

These two efforts  will enable EPA 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 measures  (ambient quality and emissions) are important in the development
of outcome-based performance measures for EPA  tribal programs.  Efforts to link TPEA directly
to the Sanitation Deficiency System Database  (SDS) of the Indian Health Service (MS) will
continue.

To further strengthen EPA's  effort to ensure environmental protection in Indian country, the
program provides support to  EPA's National Tribal Operations Committee  and Agency-wide
meetings,  including  the Indian Program Policy  Council.   In FY 2012, EPA  will begin to
implement recommendations  of its partnership  assessment, conducted in FY 2010-2011, to
strengthen and extend the reach of the Committee. Also in FY 2012, EPA will conduct program
evaluations with the  goal to aid in improving  delivery of financial services to tribes, support
tribal ecoAmbassador activities, and commit to measures development work across  the Agency
that strengthens the accuracy and relevancy of tribal measure outcomes.

Performance Targets:

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

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$355.0)  This increase reflects  the recalculation of base workforce costs  for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-0.8 FTE) This decrease reflects  a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (-$6.0)  This  decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (+$2,698.0 / +15.0 FTE)  This reflects an  increase for implementation of the new multi-
       media grant program which includes associated payroll of $1,894.0 for 15.0 FTE.  These
       funds  support new positions to oversee, provide guidance, and ensure accountability to
       the new grant program.   The majority  of the FTE are regional due to the  place-based
       nature of the program.

   •   (-$57.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA  will  continue its
       work  to  redesign processes and streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to  achieve these savings.
                                          442

-------
Statutory Authority:

Annual  Appropriation Acts;  Indian Environmental  General  Assistance Program  Act; PPA;
FIFRA;  CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SDWA; RCRA;  CERCLA; NAFTA; MPRSA; Indoor
Radon Abatement Act; OPA; and additional authorities.

Work within this Tribal Capacity Building Program  supports the above authorities as well as
additional statutory authorities that influence environmental protection and affect human health
and environmental protection in Indian country.
                                         443

-------
Program Area: International Programs
                444

-------
                                                                       US Mexico Border
                                                      Program Area: International Programs
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$4,969.0
$4,969.0
21.2
FY 2010
Actuals
$4,997.8
$4,997.8
21.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$4,969.0
$4,969.0
21.2
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$4,912.0
$4,912.0
21.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($57.0)
($57.0)
-0.1
Program Project Description:

The 2,000 mile border between the United States and Mexico is one of the most complex and
dynamic regions in the world. This region accounts for three of the ten poorest counties in the
U.S., with an unemployment rate 250-300 percent higher than the rest of the United States.61  In
addition, 432 thousand of the 14 million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias62 which are
unincorporated communities characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water.

The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 program continues to be a successful joint effort between the U.S.
and Mexican  governments.  The two governments  work with the 10  border  states (4 U.S./6
Mexican), 26 U.S.  federally recognized Indian tribes, and with local communities to improve the
region's environmental health. The Border 2012 framework agreement is intended to protect the
environment and  public health along  the U.S.-Mexico border region,  consistent  with  the
principles of sustainable development. Some examples of the results achieved to date include: (1)
constructed adequate water and wastewater infrastructure for  over 7 million border residents; (2)
completed a report on Truck Stop Electrification and Anti-Idling as a Diesel Emission Reduction
Strategy at US-Mexico Ports of Entry that identifies strategies for reducing emissions from idling
trucks  as they wait  at the ports of entry;  (3)  completed the first hazardous  waste  clean-up,
Metales y Derivados, a lead smelting facility, under Mexico's new clean-up law;  (4) continued
the cleanup  at the  Ciudad Juarez site  (together, all cleanups to date have  eliminated over 4.5
million scrap  tires along the  border); (5)  developed an educational  DVD entitled "A is for
Asthma with Elmo,"  which is utilized to educate preschoolers thru second graders about asthma;
and (6) updated the sister city plan  for the municipality of Juarez (Chihuahua) and Sunland Park
(New Mexico) to  incorporate Isleta del Sur Pueblo, making this the first sister city plan to
include a Native American tribe.

Note: The Border  water and wastewater infrastructure programs are described  in the State and
Tribal  Assistance  Grants (STAG) appropriation,  Infrastructure  Assistance:  Mexico Border
Program Narrative.
61 http://www.nmsu.edu/~bec/BEC/Readings/10.USMBHC-TheBorderAtAGlance.pdf
62 http://www.borderhealth.org/border region.php
                                           445

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The key areas of focus for the Border 2012 program continue to include:  (1) increasing access to
drinking  water and wastewater infrastructure; (2) building greenhouse gas (GHG) information
capacity  and expanding voluntary energy  efficiency  reduction  programs  to  achieve  GHG
reduction; (3) developing institutional capacity to manage municipal solid waste; (4) piloting
projects that reduce  exposure to household pesticides; (5)  conducting binational emergency
preparedness training and exercises at  sister cities; and (6)  continuing to test and update the
emergency notification mechanism between  Mexico and the United States.  In addition, in FY
2012, EPA also will focus its efforts towards the development of the next generation of the
border program.

The Border 2012 Program continues to  address water and  sanitation needs along the border
through the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), which has been instrumental in
improving the quality of life of communities  along the border.   More than 7 million people
benefit today from improved sanitation and access to drinking water.  In addition, Border 2012
funded several demonstration projects,  including storm-water detention  structures in Nogales,
Sonora; constructed wetlands in Mexicali and Tecate;  and a pilot rain harvesting system  and
composting  toilets in the Arizona/Sonora region.  All will  reduce water contamination from
sewage and each provides added benefits through improved flood control, water conservation, or
riparian habitat value. In 2009, BEIF funding helped to complete 13 projects, which provided
wastewater and drinking  water services to 370,000 people in border communities of Playas de
Rosarito (Baja California), Somerton and Nogales (Arizona), and Agua Prieta (Sonora).

Continued collaboration between EPA and the Mexican Environment Secretariat (SEMARNAT)
has resulted in Mexico launching the Transports Limpio, modeled after EPA's SmartWay. Work
under this program will continue with a goal to increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollutant and
greenhouse gas emissions from  diesel  trucks operating along the border. In addition, all 10
border states have  completed greenhouse  gas  emissions (GHGs)  inventories  following  the
International Panel on Climate  Change protocol.  These inventories provide information on
sources and volumes  of emissions and enable identification of strategies for reducing emissions.
In FY 2012, the program will continue work  towards building on border greenhouse gas (GHG)
information capacity  using comparable  methodologies and expand  voluntary cost-effective
programs for reduction of GHG emissions in the border area. GHG emissions will be estimated
in at least eight border states, identifying the sources and locations from which reductions may
be achieved.

Abandoned  scrap tires  continue to present environmental  and  public  health hazards from
potential  fires and their resulting air pollution and from disease-carrying pests.  Together, all
cleanups  to date have eliminated  over 4.5 million scrap tires along the border.   Previously, EPA
and SEMARNAT developed the  Scrap Tire Integrated Management Initiative to eliminate scrap
tire piles and ensure that newly generated scrap tires are managed in an environmentally sound
manner.  Since then, EPA has been working with border states, municipalities,  and the  tire
industry in their tire initiative collaborative efforts  to increase awareness  and understanding of
the US-Mexico Scrap Tire  Integrated Management Initiative through capacity building efforts.
In FY 2012, the program will continue the clean-up of the Ciudad Juarez tire pile, in addition to
                                          446

-------
reducing waste generation  and environmental impacts through green purchasing, proper solid
waste  management, and source  reduction  practices.  For example, a  collection event  in
Tamaulipas achieved notable results, including the collection of 12,010 liters of used oil, 4,461
liters  of oil mixed water,  768 kilograms  of mud containing hydrocarbons,  and 2,150 used
batteries.  In  FY 2012,  EPA  will  continue  applying the binational  framework on  clean-
up/remediation and restoration of sites contaminated with hazardous waste at the border  of
California and Baja California.

In 2010, EPA and SEMARNAT, building on the very successful performance of Border 2012,
started the evaluation/assessment  of continuing environmental  and health challenges in the
border region which will inform the development of the next generation of the border program.
This work will continue in FY 2012.

Performance Targets:

Work  under  this program  supports  multiple strategic objectives.   Currently, there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$31.0)  This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total  FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$29.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$3.0)  This increase  supports programmatic  outreach  efforts for the Border  2012
       Program.
                                           447

-------
Statutory Authority:

In conjunction with NEPA section 102(2)(F)63: CAA 103(a), 42 USC 7403(a); CWA 104(a)(l)
and (2), 33  USC  1254(a)(l)  and  (2);  SDWA 1442(a)(l),  42 USC  300j-l(a)(l);  SWDA
8001(a)(l),  42 USC 6981(a)(l);  FIFRA §17(d) and 20(a) , 7 U.S.C.  §136o(d) and  136r(a);
TSCA§10(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15  U.S.C. §2609(a) (in consultation
and cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services and with other appropriate
departments and  agencies); MPRSA 203(a)(l),  33 USC  1443(a)(l),  42 USC  4332;  Annual
Appropriation Acts.
63 Section 102(2 )(F) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4332(2 )(F), directs all Federal agencies,
where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, to lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions and programs
designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment.
EPA construes the explicit authority to conduct education and training and to render technical assistance contained in the statutes
cited above, as supplemented by §102(2)(F) of NEPA, as implicitly supporting activities which will benefit foreign governments
and foreign, international and domestic organizations in the international arena to protect the quality of the environment.
                                                448

-------
                                                       International Sources of Pollution
                                                     Program Area: International Programs
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$8,628.0
$8,628.0
44.4
FY 2010
Actuals
$8,514.5
$8,514.5
43.7
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$8,628.0
$8,628.0
44.4
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$8,302.0
$8,302.0
44.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($326.0)
($326.0)
-0.2
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.  To achieve our  domestic  environmental objectives,  it is
important to keep abreast of emerging environmental issues and to collaborate with domestic and
foreign partners to address foreign sources of pollution that impact the United States (U.S.) and
the global commons, such as the open ocean and the atmosphere.  It also is important for the U.S.
to work with international partners to address the impacts of pollution from  the U.S. on other
countries and the global environment.  Key countries like Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia
and vital regions like Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, as well as U.S. border areas, are
necessary partners  in  addressing these  issues.   EPA has identified  six priority areas for
international action: Build Strong Environmental and Legal Structures; Improve Access to Clean
Water; Improve Air Quality;  Limit  Global Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions  and Other Climate
Forcing Pollutants;  Reduce Exposure to  Toxic Chemicals; and Reduce Hazardous Waste and
Improve Waste Management.

Air quality in the United States is affected by other  countries'  emissions of criteria pollutants
(e.g.,  PM,  NOx,  SOx, lead, ozone,  carbon monoxide) and air toxics (e.g., mercury [Hg],
Persistent Organic Pollutants [POPs]). These emissions also can have a detrimental impact on
human health and the environment.

Foreign sources of pollution may impact the U.S. environment and public health directly through
our land borders, shared natural resources, transport of pollutants in the atmosphere, food  chains,
or other vectors. Foreign sources of pollution may include  emissions of air pollutants, mercury,
toxics, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and waste (hazardous and electronic). As we better understand
the interdependences of global ecosystems and the transport of pollutants, it becomes clear that
the actions  of other countries affect the U.S. environment and the actions of the U.S. affect the
global environment.

EPA  engages bilaterally, regionally, and  multilaterally  (e.g., United Nations  Environment
Program [UNEP] and the Arctic Council, and multilateral agreements such as the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, etc.) to address sources of pollution and address
                                          449

-------
domestic and global environmental challenges. An important EPA focus is building the capacity
of international partners to establish  environmental institutions,  enact  effective laws  and
regulations, enforce environmental  laws, have  the technical  abilities  and tools to assess
environmental  conditions,  impacts,  and  measure  the  progress  of environmental  protection
policies, programs, and strategies.  International capacity-building plays a key role in protecting
human health and the environment.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA continues to address air pollution and air quality with international partners that contribute
significant pollution  to  the  environment  and  who  are committed  to  improving  their
environmental performance.  For example, China is steadily improving its clean air laws with
advice  and lessons learned  from the U.S.   Also, Indonesia is  collaborating with EPA in
improving the air quality in key areas, such as the city of Jakarta, an important mega-city.  EPA
will work with selected countries in the Caribbean to enhance their monitoring capabilities and
assist in the development of air quality standards.  EPA also will continue to address climate
change  issues by fulfilling its international responsibilities under existing efforts and provisions,
and  by intensifying  our  efforts to  coordinate,  negotiate,  implement,  and  participate in
international agreements. EPA will do this at the policy level via participation and representation
of the U.S. in international organizations and at international fora.  EPA engagements will cover
core elements of ongoing  negotiations, and associated multilateral and bilateral  dialogue on
implementation via mitigation, adaptation,  financing and trade, and technology cooperation. EPA
also will explore and assess climate impacts of short-term air pollutants including black carbon,
tropospheric ozone and methane, with a particular focus on the Arctic.

Additionally, EPA will  strengthen and expand international capacity building efforts for GHG
avoidance  and reduction, focusing primarily, but not exclusively,  on work  with developing
countries and emerging economies. EPA will partner with developed and developing countries,
to share lessons learned on the effective management of GHG emissions reductions  as well as to
share tools and methodologies to promote ways  to adapt  to climate change.  EPA also  will
promote co-benefit strategies with partner countries that reduce GHG  emissions  and black
carbon,  improving local air quality as well  as global climate impacts.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to be an  active partner in the Partnership for Clean Fuels and
Vehicles (PCFV) program. The global car fleet is predicted to triple by 2050 - over 80 percent of
that increase would be in the developing world.64 The primary goal of this global partnership is
to reduce vehicular air pollution and emissions of climate forcers in developing and transitioning
countries by eliminating lead in gasoline, phasing down sulphur in diesel and gasoline fuels, and
facilitating the introduction of cleaner  and more efficient  vehicles.  Additionally, EPA  will
continue its efforts to reduce  transboundary  pollution by  focusing on practical  measures to
achieve reductions in PM, NOx and  other emissions, particularly from power  plants and ships.
For example, EPA will continue to assist China with assessing and  reducing  emissions of PM
and mercury from coal combustion sources, and with information and analyses to inform China's
environmental objectives under the 12th 5-Year Plan.
 1IEA 2008 Energy Technology Perspectives 2008—Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, International Energy Agency, Paris.


                                           450

-------
As part of its effort to reduce global sources of persistent bioaccumulative toxics, EPA continues
efforts to reduce  the global  use  and emission  of mercury. EPA joined with  other U.S.
Government agencies and the international community at the February 2009 UNEP Governing
Council in Nairobi in supporting a major decision to elaborate a legally binding instrument on
mercury  to  reduce the health  and environmental risks associated  with mercury. 65   EPA
participated in the first session  of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in June
2010, and the Agency will be active in the development of U.S. negotiating positions through the
conclusion of the INC process in 2013.  In FY 2012, EPA will work with the UNEP and other
partners  to strengthen the availability  and reliability of data, analyses, and  other technical
information necessary to inform the INC process.  This will include sharing information on U.S.
mercury  emissions' sources and regulatory and policy approaches for controlling them.  EPA
also will continue to address priority issues such as reducing the supply of commodity mercury
to the global market, enhancing  the  capacity for mercury  storage, reducing mercury use  in
products and processes,  and raising awareness  of mercury-free  alternatives.  EPA will work
closely with other mercury-emitting countries, especially China; and  address various aspects  of
the reduction or elimination of the use and emissions of mercury.

As urban populations continue to grow, clean water supplies  become increasingly  at risk.
Collaboration with global partners is needed to build awareness of water pollution issues and to
promote  watershed protection. For FY 2012, EPA will promote clean water and drinking water
programs in Africa, China, Latin America, the Caribbean, and other key countries and regions
focusing on improving the quality of water  sources and managing  other environmental risks
using comprehensive and sustainable approaches.  Through an exchange of technical expertise
and capacity  building efforts, EPA will work with partners to develop programs that promote
cost-effective and sustainable drinking water and wastewater approaches with key countries and
share experiences and lessons learned globally.

In FY 2012, 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.  Under the Stockholm Convention,3 EPA works  with  many countries to  reduce
Persistent Organic Pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, dioxins, and
furans. 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,
including 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 2012, EPA will strengthen implementation of global, regional, and national programs to
address electronic waste (e-waste) and sound  reuse and recycling of electronic equipment.  The
65 Governing Council of the United Nations Environmental Program, February 2009.
3 For more information on the Stockholm Convention, see http://www.pops.int.
                                           451

-------
Agency will partner with other nations and international organizations, such as UNEP, to begin
tracking the international movement of electronic waste, and to provide "eWaste best practices"
through education and demonstration projects in developing countries.  These efforts will help
reduce risks from exposure to toxic substances contained in e-waste such as lead, mercury,
cadmium,  perfluorinated  chemicals,  hexavalent chromium,  and barium through  awareness
raising, capacity building on inspections in ports,  detecting  cases  of noncompliance,  and
enabling  improved  inter-ministerial  and   inter-governmental  information   sharing   and
collaboration to address e-waste issues.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program  supports  multiple  strategic  objectives.   Currently,  there  are  no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$83.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation  of base workforce costs for  existing
       FTE.

    •   (-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$396.0) This reflects  a reduction of efforts addressing international sources of criteria
       pollutants and toxics such as mercury, POPs, and lead.

    •   (+$20.0) This reflects  realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local
       Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

    •   (-$33.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel,  general services,  printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes and streamline activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                           452

-------
Statutory Authority:

In conjunction with NEPA section 102(2)(F)66: CAA 103(a), 42 USC 7403(a); CWA 104(a)(l)
and (2), 33  USC  1254(a)(l)  and  (2);  SDWA  1442(a)(l),  42  USC  300j-l(a)(l);  SWDA
8001(a)(l),  42 USC 6981(a)(l);  FIFRA §17(d)  and 20(a) , 7 U.S.C.  §136o(d) and  136r(a);
TSCA§10(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15  U.S.C. §2609(a) (in consultation
and cooperation with the  Department of Health and Human Services and with  other appropriate
departments and agencies); MPRSA 203(a)(l), 33  USC 1443(a)(l),   42 USC  4332;  Annual
Appropriation Acts.
66 Section 102(2 )(F) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4332(2 )(F), directs all Federal agencies,
where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, to lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions and programs
designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment.
EPA construes the explicit authority to conduct education and training and to render technical assistance contained in the statutes
cited above, as supplemented by §102(2)(F) of NEPA, as implicitly supporting activities which will benefit foreign governments
and foreign, international and domestic  organizations in the international arena to protect the quality of the environment.
                                                453

-------
                                                                 Trade and Governance
                                                     Program Area: International Programs
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$6,227.0
$6,227.0
16.3
FY 2010
Actuals
$6,359. 8
$6,359.8
20.7
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,227.0
$6,227.0
16.3
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$6,233.0
$6,233.0
16.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$6.0
$6.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

As our understanding of environmental issues has increased, so has our appreciation of the need
to engage 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 is an effective part of a larger U.S. strategy for preserving the health and environment of
U.S. citizens while also promoting  sustainable development and advancing democratic ideals.
EPA supports U.S. diplomatic,  trade,  and foreign  policy goals that extend far beyond  our
domestic agenda.

The nexus of environmental protection and international trade has long been a priority for EPA
engagement. EPA has played a key role in ensuring trade-related activities sustain environmental
protection since the 1972 Trade Act mandated interagency consultation by the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) on trade policy issues. U.S. trade with the world has grown rapidly from
$34.4 billion in 1960 to $3.394 trillion in 2008 as stated by the U.S.  Census Bureau,  Foreign
Trade Division.67 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 USTR to provide advice, guidance  and clearance to the USTR in  the
development of U.S. international trade and investment policy.

EPA,  represented  by the Administrator,  is the lead U.S.  agency to implement the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC).  Beyond  its primary objective
to foster the protection and improvement  of the environment in the region, this also involves
trilateral efforts to  assess and reduce any possible environmental effects  of increased trade
among the three North American nations. NAAEC's creation represented a commitment by the
U.S., Canada, and Mexico to integrate environmental protection considerations into their trade
negotiations.  When the North American  Free  Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect in
1994, it created the biggest free trade area in the world at the time, with a  combined population
  http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/goods.pdf.
                                          454

-------
                                                           /-Q                         	
of 400 million people and an aggregated GDP of over $7 trillion.  Booming trade after NAFTA
came into effect also has  led  to increasing  traffic congestion  and related  environmental
consequences, particularly air pollution.69

Beyond NAFTA, EPA plays an important role in several World Trade Organization (WTO)
negotiation forums,  bilateral free trade agreements, and other matters.  To engage a variety of
domestic stakeholders, USTR  and EPA co-host the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory
Committee (TEPAC), a  Congressionally-mandated advisory group that provides  advice  and
information in connection with the development,  implementation,  and administration  of U.S.
trade policy.

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 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 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, supports implementation of agreements
by assisting our trading  partners to develop  effective and efficient environmental  protection
standards. A fourth function is to provide technical and policy guidance so  as to avoid potential
conflicts between trade commitments and our statutory obligations  to  implement domestic
environmental laws  and policies.

As part of the implementation of free trade agreements, especially the NAFTA, EPA continues to
have  a  central  role  in  developing and  managing programs  to  build  good  environmental
governance.  These  programs help  protect  human health and  the environment, while helping to
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 meet their
obligations under trade agreements to enforce their own environmental laws. Through leadership
in the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the  Organization  for  Economic
Cooperation  and Development  (OECD), and  other international entities,  EPA supports
environmental performance reviews of other countries.  These reviews help facilitate the sharing
and  continual improvement  of good governance  best practices (such as  providing access to
information,  collaborating  with   diverse  stakeholders,  and  providing  transparency   in
environmental decision making).  Beyond CEC's support of environmental performance reviews,
the EPA ensures that capacity-building activities are incorporated throughout the CEC's annual
work plans.
68 US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, Annual 2008 Trade Highlights, www.census, go v/foreign-
trade/statistics/highlights/annual.htmL accessed August 17, 2009.
69 U.S. Transportation Research Board, The National Academies, "Critical Issues in Transportation," 2006.
                                          455

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

During FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide input to U.S. engagement in multilateral trade
negotiations and initiation and/or conclusion of new bilateral or regional free trade agreements,
and trade and investment framework agreements. 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 particular, EPA will be providing technical policy expertise in  the
development of the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership  (TPP), affecting environment
and trade throughout the trans-Pacific region.  In assisting the USTR to develop and negotiate the
environmental  provisions of  the  TPP  agreement,  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 is contributing to the follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, Rio+20, to be held in
Rio  in 2012.   In advance of the  Rio  2012  Conference,  EPA  is  working closely  with  the
Department of State  and  other  federal  agencies to address  international  environmental
governance  equities,  such as the  development  of a  framework  of action  for  sustainable
production and consumption.  EPA and other federal partners also will continue to build on the
sustainable  communities partnership efforts through  the demonstration  of the  sustainable
communities concept in an international setting.  In support of the international environmental
governance  and the green economy track, EPA  will  explore  activities  such as economic,
environmental, and health benefits of green infrastructure investment.

EPA also will  provide targeted capacity building  support under  the TPP  with similarities to
governance  and capacity building  under  previously negotiated U.S. free trade  agreements.
Should negotiated agreements enter into force,  including with South Korea,  EPA will seek to
provide appropriate capacity building assistance. 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  Free Trade Agreements and serves as a
good example  of EPA's approach to trade related  work.   The  CEC promotes environmental
cooperation in North America and addresses environmental issues from a regional  perspective,
with a particular focus on those issues that arise in the context of deeper economic, social, and
environmental linkages.

Ensuring healthy  communities and ecosystems will involve undertaking activities that offer
greater protection of our children and other at-risk and underserved communities and by building
capacity  among our indigenous peoples to design and implement  innovative  environmental
protection and conservation projects. In looking to  increase the effectiveness and relevance of
the CEC, EPA led efforts resulting in a new policy direction focused on three new environmental
priorities:  (1)  Healthy  Communities and Ecosystems,  (2) Climate Change  - Low-Carbon
Economy, and (3) Greening the  Economy  in North America.    This first priority addresses
                                          456

-------
chemical risks as an  important  element of healthy communities and  ecosystems and  will
strengthen the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations that  also
serve to promote healthy communities.  The second priority focus begins the transition to low-
carbon economies in order to significantly reduce our respective and collective carbon footprints.
Recognizing that climate change could disproportionately affect some communities,  EPA is
promoting trilateral support to  community-based  adaptations to enhance resilience to  impacts
from climate changes that affect both physical and social environments.  Our third priority is the
goal of greening the economies  of the three Parties.  By refocusing on the three priorities above,
the CEC will support EPA's goals and objectives and move the Administrator's agenda forward
throughout North America.

Performance Targets:

Work  under  this program supports multiple strategic objectives.  Currently, there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$19.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$21.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency  Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$8.0) This increase supports cooperation efforts in international trade and governance
       foras and arenas.
                                           457

-------
Statutory Authority:

In conjunction with NEPA section 102(2)(F)70: CAA 103(a), 42 USC 7403(a); CWA 104(a)(l)
and  (2),  33  USC 1254(a)(l)  and  (2);  SDWA  1442(a)(l),  42 USC  300j-l(a)(l);  SWDA
8001(a)(l), 42 USC 6981(a)(l);  FIFRA §17(d) and 20(a) ,  7 U.S.C.  §136o(d)and  136r(a);
TSCA§10(a) of the Toxic  Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15  U.S.C. §2609(a) (in consultation
and cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services and with other appropriate
departments and  agencies);  MPRSA 203(a)(l), 33  USC  1443(a)(l),   42 USC  4332;  Annual
Appropriation Acts; Executive  Order 12915  (May  13,  1994)  (implementation of NAFTA
environmental side  agreement);  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), as amended by E.G.  13346 (July 8, 2004);
70 Section 102(2 )(F) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4332(2 )(F), directs all Federal agencies,
where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, to lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions and programs
designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment.
EPA construes the explicit authority to conduct education and training and to render technical assistance contained in the statutes
cited above, as supplemented by §102(2)(F) of NEPA, as implicitly supporting activities which will benefit foreign governments
and foreign, international and domestic organizations in the international arena to protect the quality of the environment.
                                              458

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                    459

-------
                                                                   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 2010
Enacted
$5,912.0
$785.0
$6,697.0
15.8
FY 2010
Actuals
$5,881.7
$524.3
$6,406.0
9.7
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$5,912.0
$785.0
$6,697.0
15.8
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$6,837.0
$728.0
$7,565.0
13.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$925.0
($57.0)
$868.0
-2.5
Program Project Description:

Information is a strategic resource to EPA.  It allows each program office to fulfill its mission in
support of the protection  of human health and the environment.   The Agency's Information
Security program is  designed to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of these
information assets.   The protection strategy includes, but  is not limited to, enterprise policy,
procedure and practice  management; information security awareness,  training and  education;
risk-based  Certification & Accreditation  (C&A);  Plan of Action & Milestones  (POA&M)
management to ensure remediation of weaknesses; defense-in-depth and breadth technology and
operational security  management; incident response and  handling; and  Federal Information
Security Management Act (FISMA) reporting.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Effective information security requires  vigilance and adaptation to  new challenges  every day.
Agency  security  practitioners  are challenged with responding to increasingly creative and
sophisticated attempts to breach organizational protections. In FY 2012, EPA's integrated efforts
will allow the  Agency's Information Security Program to take a more pro-active role in dealing
with these threats.

EPA will continue to protect, defend and sustain its information assets by continuing  to improve
its Information Security Program.  The  Agency will continue to focus on asset definition and
management, compliance,  incident management, knowledge and information management, risk
management and technology management.  Secondary activities in FY 2012 include,  but are not
limited  to, access management,   organizational training  and  awareness, measurement and
analysis, and service continuity.  These efforts will strengthen the Agency's  ability to ensure
operational resiliency.   The final result is an information security program  that can  rely on
effective and efficient processes and documented plans when threatened by disruptive  events.
                                          460

-------
Concurrently, EPA will continue its performance-based information security activities with a
particular emphasis  on  risk management,  incident  management and information security
architecture (defense-in-depth/breadth). These three areas are critical to the Agency's security
position.  They are also key components of various federal mandates, such as the Office of
Management  and Budget (OMB) information security initiatives, which will be implemented
throughout FY 2012, including: Domain Name Service Security (DNSSec); the Federal Desktop
Core Configuration (FDCC); and United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB).
These  mandates are rapidly  enhancing the Agency's security requirements for information
policy, technology  standards and practices.

EPA will continue transitioning from  Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to IPv6 in accordance
with the June 30,  2008 OMB M-05-22,  Transition Planning for Internet Protocol  Version 6
(IPv6).  This effort is a Federal  initiative designed to retain our nation's technical and market
leadership in the Internet sector  and to expand and improve  services for Americans.  As with
many enterprise initiatives, there are significant security challenges that must be addressed to
make this capability secure.  EPA will continue analyzing and planning a long-term strategy for
implementing, monitoring and securing an IPv6 environment in FY 2012.

EPA  will  support and expand  continuous  monitoring to  detect and remediate Advanced
Persistent Threats to the  Agency's IT  networks.  EPA will  enhance  our internal  Computer
Security Incident Response Capability to ensure the  rapid identification, alerting and reporting of
suspicious activity. Additionally, EPA continues to support the Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 12 (HSPD-12) requirements  for logical access as identified in the Federal Information
Processing Standards (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity  Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and
Contractors.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(408) Percent of
Federal Information
Security Management
Act reportable systems
that are certified and
accredited.

FY 2010
Target


100



FY 2010
Actual


100


FY2011
CR
Target


100



FY 2012
Target


100



Units


Percent


FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$124.0)  This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTE to better reflect utilization
       rates.
                                          461

-------
   •   (+$1,049.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources
       for the Computer Security  Incident Response  Center  from across  programs to the
       Information Security program.  In  accordance with  the Federal Information  Security
       Management Act, EPA is required to have the ability to provide pro-active, reactive and
       support services associated with information security incident management.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 44 U.S.C. 3541 et seq. - Sections 301,
302,  303, 304, 305, 401 and 402 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39
U.S.C. 2803  et seq. - Sections 1115, 1116, 1117,  1118 and 1119 and Government Management
Reform Act  (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. - Sections  101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403,  404 and
405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - Sections 5001,  5201, 5301, 5401,
5502, 5601 and 5701  and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),  44 U.S.C. 3501  et seq.  -  Sections
104,  105, 106, 107, 108,  109, 110, 111,  112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),  5
U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552  et seq.  -
Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
                                         462

-------
                                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$98,258.9
$4,054.0
$152.3
$24.0
$16,498.3
$118,987.5
481.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$88,576.0
$4,108.0
$0.0
$0.0
$15,352.0
$108,036.0
481.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($8,834.0)
($277.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($1,735.0)
($11,032.0)
-21.6
Program Project Description:

High quality, readily available and usable data is a strategic resource that supports the Agency's
mission of  protecting  public health and  the  environment.   IT/Data Management (IT/DM)
program activities support the Administration's goals of transparency, participation, engagement
and collaboration to expand the conversation on environmentalism.  IT/DM also supports the
expansion of the Agency's efforts to build services, rather than just databases or IT systems, that
enable citizens to interact with their government electronically  to get the information they need
from EPA, to understand what it means, and to share it with each other more cheaply and with
less burden.  This program provides essential technology to  Agency staff to enable them to
conduct their work effectively and efficiently.

Mission activities across the Agency  require and rely  upon better information and tools;
improving  agency  work  processes  to promote  efficiencies;  increasing transparency and
innovation in the agency work processes; and enabling the work force with reliable  tools and
services.  In broad terms, IT/DM 'powers' these mission priorities by providing the critical  IT
infrastructure needed for:   1) rapid and efficient communication;  2) exchange  and storage of
data, analysis and computations; and 3) 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 Integrated Compliance
Information  System (ICIS).  Recent partnerships include portal projects with the Research and
Development and Air and Radiation programs to access scientific and program data.
                                          463

-------
The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities.  For descriptive
purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access;
geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/Information Management (IT/EVI) policy
and planning; electronic records and content management; internet operations and maintenance
enhancements (IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/EVI infrastructure.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the IT/DM Program will continue to work with EPA program offices on the Healthy
Communities priority.  This  program will focus on:   1) increasing the availability of plain-
language information and tools on air toxics for at-risk communities, including information on
environmental health issues affecting schools and children;  2) providing Web 2.0 information
collaboration tools such as wikis and/or blogs in EPA's outreach and communications efforts to
increase transparency, coordination and collaboration among states, local communities, schools
and  the  general  public  as  they  share  lessons  learned,  best  practices  and  an  evolving
understanding of the environment; and 3) maintaining EPA's technology infrastructure to provide
the capacity needed to support use of information technologies in outreach programs.  Wiki's,
blogs and  other Web  2.0  communication  technologies are effective,  low cost and  low
maintenance tools for obtaining citizen and key stakeholder input and dialog that is critical to
expanding the conversation on environmentalism.

In particular, work in the program will focus on developing discovery tools and data publishing
infrastructure for facilitating  access to EPA data assets,  including an automated capability to
access and query data from programmatic databases.  For  example, EPA has  developed  data
discovery tools,  such as Data Finder, to help citizens find a vast selection of EPA data sources,
which are organized into  user-friendly topics and are in easily downloadable formats. For  each
data  source in Data Finder, you can see a basic overview, including the geographic scale and
other contextual  information, then access the data source itself. Other tools are being developed
for more specific use with programmatic  datasets, such as TRI,  air, water and  enforcement.
Work also  will  include the ability to convert existing data into a number of different  data
formats, such as open geospatial standards, to enhance data integration and collaboration. Final
products will be  available in the form of Web services and syndicated feeds to a variety of users
inside and outside EPA, including publishing the data through the Exchange Network.

The  program will work to develop collaborative tools and  suites of key  information in close
consultation with EPA's media programs.  The program also will assist by developing a mobile
application to allow monitoring data collected in the field to be sent directly to EPA or other
appropriate location for publication on the Internet so that it can be made quickly available to all
who  are  interested. Working through its ongoing relationship with the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the program will continue to
obtain and utilize  advice  on ways  diverse  and underserved communities prefer to receive
environmental information that will  allow them to  participate in keeping  our  communities
healthy.

IT/Data Management will support the Agency's Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative by
enabling electronic reporting of environmental data by industry. Currently,  facilities rely on out-
                                           464

-------
dated,  paper-based reporting of their  emissions, leading to time and  resource consumption,
delays, lack of tools to share and analyze the information, and data gaps. Mandating electronic
reporting will improve the ability of EPA and its regulatory partners to determine the compliance
status  of facilities,  improve  enforcement  targeting and substantially reduce the  costs  of
collecting, sharing and analyzing compliance information.

In FY 2012, EPA will develop an open platform "e-file" data exchange standard. For as many
regulatory programs as possible given  funding received, EPA will determine the required data
elements for  reporting and establish  security  and authentication  standards  that would  be
incorporated by commercial  software vendors. This approach has been successful for the Internal
Revenue Service, for example.  With these improvements to the Agency's electronic reporting
capabilities, the Agency will have a centralized and secure service-based storage mechanism for
compliance monitoring  and enforcement data from  the  states and its  partners. In addition to
compliance benefits, this initiative will promote transparency and data integration. Enhancing
compliance data systems to allow electronic reporting will allow for better integration with other
data. If new reporting tools and upgrades to existing systems are well integrated, the result will
be improved data and an improved ability for users of EIS  to conduct analysis in support of
developing future regulations and programs to protect public health and the environment.

The following summarize other ongoing major activity areas within this program:

   •   Information  Access  - FY  2012  activities  will  continue  making environmental
       information accessible to all users.   Activities include:   support  for Toxics  Release
       Inventory71 (TRI) data; maintaining EPA's  libraries; managing HQ's Docket Center
       operations; access to Environmental  Indicators;  proactive disclosures of environmental
       information; increased access to environmental  databases via the Web; and using the
       Agency's Freedom of Information Act  (FOIA) tracking and  management system to
       ensure more timely responses to FOIA requests.  The Agency will continue to support
       eRulemaking - a Web-based system to facilitate, and provide greater public  access to,
       federal rulemakings; and development of analytical tools to help users understand the
       meaning of environmental data.  It includes facility data collected from numerous federal
       programs and tools  to  help those who use  information from  a variety of sources to
       reconfigure that data so it can be easily compared and analyzed.

       Of particular  emphasis in FY 2012 is  EPA's Transparency  and Open  Government
       participation, including streamlined contributions to Data.gov.  Key activities will ensure
       that access to  critical data (e.g., regulated facilities, toxic releases) is increased through
       Data.gov and the Agency's GeoData  Gateway, providing opportunities for collaboration
       and  intergovernmental  partnerships, reducing   duplication  of  data investments, and
       offering the public easy access  to important federal services for businesses. Core Web
       2.0  activities will continue to be funded to  support necessary  program-specific blogs,
       wikis and collaboration activities.  (In FY 2012, the Information  Access activities will be
       funded at $1.03 million in payroll funding and $4.21 million in non-payroll funding.)
71 For more information on Toxics Release Inventory data, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/tri/
                                           465

-------
                                            "79
   •   Geospatial Information and Analysis   - In FY 2012, EPA will continue providing
       place-based analysis of environmental conditions and trends across the country. A broad
       range of data pertinent to specific places (facilities, roads, waste sites,  etc.) and natural
       features (wetlands, soil types, hydrographic features, etc.) has been cataloged and can be
       accessed using web-based or desktop tools.  Geospatial information and analysis play a
       critical  role in the Agency's ability to  respond rapidly and  effectively  in  times of
       emergency in addition to meeting everyday program and region specific business needs.
       Additionally, geographic location is a key way to find and access EPA digital data and
       documents, and the Agency is in the process of building tools that will  allow Web users
       to retrieve relevant documents by specifying a location in which they are interested.

       Implemented as a holistic enterprise solution, these projects also save time and money,
       assure compatibility and reduce the need for multiple subscriptions to software, data and
       analytical  services. (In FY 2012, the Geospatial Information and Analysis activities will
       be funded at $4.88 million in payroll funding and $4.93 million in non-payroll funding.)

   •   Envirofacts73 - This area supports  a single point of access to EPA databases containing
       information about environmental activities that may affect air, water and land anywhere
       in the United States; houses data that has been collected from regulated entities and the
       states;  and makes that data accessible  to  environmental professionals, the regulated
       community,  citizens groups and state and EPA employees through an easy-to-use, one-
       stop access point. Its components include databases and applications that make integrated
       environmental information available to all EPA stakeholders.  Serving up 3-4 million hits
       per month, Envirofacts offers popular queries and place-based  reporting and is a highly
       desirable capability for reporting environmental information to the public.   Envirofacts
       directly supports  the Agency's strategic goal of fulfilling American citizens' "Right-to-
       Know" about their environment, which in turn supports EPA's mission to protect human
       health and the environment. It also supports integrated data access, a key component in
       the planned  enterprise architecture  that will support EPA's current and future business
       needs.   (In FY 2012, Envirofacts activities will  be funded at $0.33 million in payroll
       funding and $1.90 million in non-payroll funding.)

   •   IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and Planning  - In FY 2012, EPA will
       continue to review information systems  and data bases for redundancy, streamline and
       systematize the planning and budgeting for all IT/IM activities, and monitor the progress
       and performance of all IT/IM activities  and  systems.   This  category supports EPA's
       Enterprise Architecture and the Capital Planning and  Investment Control74 process
       (CPIC), to assist the Agency in making better-informed decisions on IT/IM investments
       and resource allocations. The Agency does not currently have any high-risk IT projects.
       (In FY 2012, the IT/IM Policy and Planning activities will be funded at $11.29 million in
       payroll funding and $4.28 million in non-payroll funding.)
72 For more information on the Geospatial program, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/geospatial/
73 For more information on Envirofacts, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/
74 For more information on the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/OEI/cpic/
                                            466

-------
•  Electronic Records and Content Management  - FY 2012 activities in this  area
   primarily create the systems, and establish and maintain the processes, to convert paper
   documents into electronic documents, convert paper-based processes into systems that
   rely less on paper documents and manage the electronic documents.  By doing so, these
   activities  reduce  costs,  improve  accessibility  and improve  security  for  all  of the
   documents entered into the system. Electronic documents require less storage space and
   do  not need a filing staff to manage the paper records.  A single copy of an electronic
   document can be accessed simultaneously by numerous individuals and from virtually
   any location.

   Using a collaborative process,  in FY 2012 the Agency  will continue implementing the
   Electronic  Records and Content  Management  (ECMS) project,  an enterprise-wide,
   multimedia solution designed to manage and organize environmental data and documents
   for EPA  headquarters,  regional  offices,  field offices  and laboratories.   Previously
   fragmented data storage  approaches will be converted into a single standard platform that
   is accessible  to  everyone, reducing data and  document  search time while improving
   security and information retention efforts.

   In FY 2012, the project will be entering an operations and maintenance stage, which will
   offer efficiencies, as the results of the collaborative process used to implement the records
   repository and other similar system-to-system transfer of data are realized.  Certain tools
   developed  for specific systems (e.g.  Email BulkLoader Tool) during the development
   stages of the  project have shown to have broader applicability for other systems within
   the Agency.  These tools will be modified to meet  the needs of these systems and thus
   expand  the number of Agency data systems capable of utilizing the ECMS repository.
   Further  integration  will occur as ECMS and its email bulk loading tool are used to
   enhance the Agency's Email Optimization Project.

   EPA uses  WebCMS,  a software  system specifically designed for Web assets for the
   creation, management and publishing of the Agency's Web content.  ECMS is an Agency
   system  that enables employees, contractors, grantees  and agents of EPA  to capture,
   manage, store, deliver and preserve Agency-owned information resources and to manage
   electronic records.   Both WebCMS and ECMS are built using Documentum, but  they
   have separate and  distinct purposes. (In FY 2012,  the Electronic Records and Content
   Management  activities will be funded at $0.56  million in payroll funding and $1.93
   million in non-payroll funding.)

•  Internet  Operations   and  Maintenance   Enhancements  (IOME)  -  EPA   has
   implemented  and continues to  maintain the EPA Home  Page (www.EPA.gov) and  over
   200 top-level pages that facilitate access to the many information resources available on
   the EPA Web site, as well as support Web hosting for all of the Agency's Web sites and
   pages.   The  EPA  Web site  is the  primary  delivery mechanism  for  environmental
   information to EPA staff,  partners,  stakeholders and the public,  and  is becoming a
   resource for emergency planning and response.  (In FY 2012, the IOME activities will be
   funded at $1.42 million in payroll funding and $3.09 million in non-payroll funding.)
                                       467

-------
•  Information Reliability and Privacy - In FY 2012, EPA will continue to ensure that all
   of the data collected by the Agency  comes from reliable sources, is stored in a manner
   that is consistent with its security needs,  and is only made available to those who are
   authorized to have access.  These efforts apply  to environmental information, including
   data that is  submitted by and shared among the states, tribes and territories, as well as
   other types  of information,  such as business information that is reported by various
   industry communities, and personal information  for all EPA employees. (In FY 2012, the
   Information Reliability  and Privacy  activities will be funded at $0.33 million in  non-
   payroll funding.)

•  IT/IM Infrastructure - This area supports  the information technology infrastructure,
   administrative  and  environmental  programs,  and  telecommunications  for  all  EPA
   employees and other on-site workers  at over 100 locations, including EPA Headquarters,
   all  ten regions and  the various labs and ancillary  offices.  More  specifically,  these
   activities  provide what is  known as "workforce support," which  includes desktop
   equipment, network  connectivity, e-mail,  application hosting, remote access, telephone
   services and maintenance, Web and network servers, IT related maintenance,  IT security,
   and electronic records and data.

   Since  2007, EPA has  led  a series of  successful  initiatives  embracing  data  center
   consolidation, industry  best management  practices  and virtualization across its  data
   centers. The Agency has completed a phased virtualization program across the National
   Computer Center - EPA's primary data center -  including optimizing the efficient use of
   floor space  and  turning off air handlers. Currently, EPA is hosting more than 200
   individual Agency business  applications in an  innovative  shared hosting environment
   offering many of the features of private cloud services.  Over the next three years, EPA
   will consolidate small data centers and computer rooms in various locations across the
   country, with plans to gain more efficiencies.

   In  FY 2012, EPA will  build on the  use of multi-year leasing that sustains and renews
   technical  services (e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance) in a stable least-
   cost manner as technologies change.  EPA will continue to upgrade EPA's Web presence
   to facilitate the public's access to environmental information on the Internet in support of
   the President's initiative on Open Government.  EPA also will  expand and support the
   Agency's cloud computing initiative and  enable a mobile workforce through strategic
   investments  in  collaboration tools  such  as EPA's Portal  and access technologies.
   Definitive OMB  and EPA guidance on cloud computing along with GSA applications
   and services  are still  in  development.  The Agency's IT investments  have not yet
   evaluated cloud  computing and will be updating the current alternatives  analysis by
   September 2012.

   EPA continually revisits IT operations and investments through its Quality Improvement
   Council.  As part of FY 2012 planning,  a  senior management  level workgroup was
   charged with identifying specific opportunities for streamlining and gaining Agencywide
   IT  efficiencies. In FY 2012, the funding for IT/Infrastructure will be reduced by $3.559
   million. This cut represents the Agency's  dedication  to  IT efficiencies, which are being
                                       468

-------
       achieved through an Agencywide effort to reduce infrastructure  costs. As a result, the
       consolidation of services, consistent use of applications and purchase consolidation and
       savings related to workforce support services have enabled this program to streamline IT
       efforts  and  achieve significant efficiencies.    (In FY  2012,  the IT/EVI  Infrastructure
       activities will be funded at $25.23 million in payroll funding and  $23.17 million in non-
       payroll funding.)

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.  Currently, there are no specific
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$1,291.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •  (-$2,112.0 / -14.3 FTE) This change is a realignment of resources from IT/DM to better
       reflect where the work is being done, including: 6.0 FTE and associated payroll to
       Exchange Network, 8.2 FTE and associated payroll to TRI, and a 0.1 FTE reduction in
       the Regional offices.

    •  (+$750.0) These additional resources support the Agency's efforts to modernize
       compliance reporting and monitoring as part of the Regaining Ground in Compliance
       initiative and will enhance the Agency's electronic reporting capabilities for
       environmental data.

    •   (+$186.0) This increase reflects a realignment of resources from LUST and Oil
       appropriations to provide more efficient accounting of program expenditures.

    •  (-$3,559.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million Agencywide. This is a result of an Agencywide workgroup that was
       charged with identifying specific opportunities for infrastructure efficiency savings. The
       identified opportunities will be implemented at Headquarters and Regional offices.

    •  (-$4,713.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •  (-$58.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in EPA's share of E-Rulemaking costs.

    •  (-$111.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                           469

-------
   •   (-$508.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency's IT and telecommunications resources
       for  Computer  Security  Incident  Response  Center from  across  programs  to  the
       Information Security program and other related IT and telecommunications needs.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information
Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535  and
3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. - Sections 101-128,  301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401  et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108 and Clean Water  Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. - Sections 101,  102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. - Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. - Sections 136a - 136y
and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. - Sections 102, 210, 301 and  501
and Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) Amendments, 42  U.S.C. 300 et seq. - Sections 1400,
1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441,  1454 and 1461 and Federal  Food,  Drug and  Cosmetic  Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency  Planning and Community Right-to-Know  Act
(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.  11001 et seq. -  Sections 322, 324, 325 and  328 and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. - Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005  and
Government Performance and  Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. - Sections 1115,
1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA),  31 U.S.C.  501
et seq. - Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.  - Sections 5001, 5201, 5301,  5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. - Sections  104, 105, 106, 107, 108,  109, 110, 111,
112 and  113  and  Freedom  of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552  et seq. and Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq.  - Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955  and  961
and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. - Sections 552(a)(2),
552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
                                        470

-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
                          471

-------
                                                                   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 2010
Enacted
$5,275.0
$5,275.0
33.7
FY 2010
Actuals
$5,424.8
$5,424.8
31.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$5,275.0
$5,275.0
33.7
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$5,386.0
$5,386.0
32.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$111.0
$111.0
-1.1
Program Project Description:

This program supports  EPA's Administrative  Law  Judges (ALJs)  and the Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB) or the Board.  The ALJs preside in hearings and issue initial decisions in
cases initiated by EPA's enforcement program concerning environmental violations.  The EAB
issues final decisions in environmental adjudications (primarily enforcement and permit-related),
that are on appeal to the Board.  The EAB also serves  as the final approving body for proposed
settlements of enforcement actions initiated by the Agency.  ALJs issue orders and decisions
under the  authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the various  environmental
statutes that establish  administrative enforcement  authority.  EABs issue decisions under the
authority delegated by the Administrator. The decisions reflect findings of fact and conclusions
of law.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

By adjudicating  disputed matters, the ALJs and EAB will continue to further the Agency's
mission to protect human health and the environment.  In FY 2012, the  ALJs will  continue to
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
right of affected  persons to appeal those decisions is conferred by various statutes, regulations
and  constitutional  due  process  rights.  The  EAB issues   the Agency's final  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 Agency has  sought to achieve efficiencies in this process.  The ALJs increased the use of
alternative dispute resolution techniques to facilitate the settlement of cases and avoided more
costly litigation.  The EAB and ALJs also use videoconferencing technology to reduce expenses
for parties involved in the administrative litigation process.
                                          472

-------
In FY 2012, the EAB plans to monitor the electronic filing of original documents with the Board
as first permitted in FY 2010 and assess whether any changes to the process are needed. This
should result in greater efficiencies for all concerned.  The EAB will continue its two-year pilot
project initiated in FY 2010 on the use of alternative dispute resolution in cases on appeal, to be
followed by an assessment of the results of the  pilot and modifications as appropriate.  The
Board also will continue to support international judicial environmental training consistent with
Agency priorities. (In FY 2012, the ALJ office will be funded at $2.93 million and 17.6 FTE, and
the EAB will be funded at $2.45 million and 15.0 FTE.)

Performance Targets Narrative:

Work under this program supports  multiple  strategic objectives.   Currently, there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$184.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation  of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (-$57.0) This decrease represents a reduction in base program resources.

   •   (-$11.0)  This decrease  in travel costs reflects an  effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$5.0) This  reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets  certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA;  FIFRA;  CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA;  SOW A; EPCRA; APA;  as provided in
Appropriations Act funding.
                                           473

-------
                                                          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 2010
Enacted
$1,147.0
$893.0
$2,040.0
7.3
FY 2010
Actuals
$1,313.8
$863.5
$2,177.3
6.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$1,147.0
$893.0
$2,040.0
7.3
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$1,329.0
$927.0
$2,256.0
6.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$182.0
$34.0
$216.0
-0.4
Program Project Description:

The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) services. EPA utilizes ADR as a method for preventing or resolving
conflicts prior to engaging in formal litigation and  includes the provision  of legal counsel,
facilitation, mediation and consensus building.  The intent is to offer a cost-effective process to
resolve disputes.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide conflict prevention and ADR services to EPA
headquarters  and  Regional Offices and external stakeholders  on environmental matters.  The
national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent and resolve
disputes and  makes neutral third  parties  - such as facilitators and mediators -  more readily
available for those purposes.  Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency encourages the use of ADR
techniques  to prevent and resolve  disputes with external parties in many contexts,  including
adjudications,  rulemaking, policy development, administrative and  civil judicial  enforcement
actions, permit issuance, protests of contract awards, administration of contracts and grants,
stakeholder involvement, negotiations, and litigation.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this program  supports multiple  strategic  objectives. Currently,  there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
                                          474

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$192.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   ($-7.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   ($-2.0) This  decrease  in travel  costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   ($-1.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area
       Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

Statutory Authority:

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sections 571, 572, and 573,
Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sections 563, 565, 566, and 568; EPA's General
Authorizing Statutes.
                                           475

-------
                                                      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 2010
Enacted
$12,224.0
$12,224.0
69.5
FY 2010
Actuals
$12,413.1
$12,413.1
66.9
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$12,224.0
$12,224.0
69.5
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$11,685.0
$11,685.0
67.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($539.0)
($539.0)
-1.6
Program Project Description:

EPA's Office of  Civil Rights  (OCR)  provides  policy  direction and  guidance on  equal
employment  opportunity,  civil  rights, affirmative  employment,  diversity,  and reasonable
accommodations for the Agency's program offices, Regional  offices and laboratories.  EPA's
Civil Rights program includes:

   •   Title VI compliance;

   •   Review and  complaint  adjudication;   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

   •   Affirmative employment and diversity program planning and implementation.

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,
alternative  dispute resolution,  and reasonable accommodation.   The program also interprets
policies and  regulations,  ensures  compliance  with  civil rights  laws,  Equal  Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) directives and equal employment initiatives,  and upholds the
civil rights of EPA employees and prospective employees as required by federal statutes and
Executive Orders.
                                         476

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, OCR will continue to focus on its core mission, to ensure the fair and equitable
treatment of all employees and applicants for employment, and to foster an environment wherein
diversity is recognized as a valuable resource within  the Agency.  OCR  plans  to conduct
compliance reviews of five recipients of EPA financial assistance  in FY 2012. The Agency's
Civil Rights External Compliance Program also plans to identify and implement more effective
and timely processes for the resolution of external complaints.  (In FY 2011, the Headquarters
Office of Civil Rights will be funded at $7.85 million and 38.7 FTE.)

In FY 2012, the OCR 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 work with varying federal agencies that  may simultaneously receive
   discrimination complaints from the same complainant regarding a particular recipient.

•  Aggressively work to reduce processing time for complaints of discrimination (Title VII) and
   increase  the number of complaints  resolved through the Agency's alternative dispute
   resolution.

•  Ensure that  certification training, refresher training, and technical guidance are provided to
   more than 100 collateral  duty  Equal Employment  Opportunity (EEO) counselors  in  the
   Agency's Regional offices and  at Headquarters, annually. OCR will provide guidance and
   technical direction to its EEO Officers and provide technical assistance, as needed.

•  Continue to  roll out on-line mandatory training for EPA employees for No Fear Act
   information, which is also a Congressional requirement.

•  Continue to support an EEO presence in the EPA Las Vegas (LV) Laboratory and develop
   EEO training programs to specifically address EEO management concerns in the LV lab.

•  Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the Reasonable Accommodation process. 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 ensure efficient implementation of the policy
   and procedures.

•  Monitor the Agency's compliance with various statutes, Equal Employment and Opportunity
   Commission (EEOC) regulations,  EPA policy and procedures related to the  reasonable
   accommodation of qualified applicants and employees with disabilities.

•  Conduct special  emphasis  programs that increase cultural  awareness  of minorities, women,
   and persons with disabilities, as well as celebrate the diversity of  our Agency.
                                          477

-------
•  Prepare Management Directive 715  annual report to EEOC.  Continue  effective  and
   consistent  communications of  OCR's Affirmative  Employment  Program  plan  to  EPA
   management and brief senior management in all headquarters program offices. Management
   Directive 715 (MD-715) is the policy guidance which the EEOC provides to federal agencies
   for their use  in  establishing and  maintaining effective programs of equal employment
   opportunity under Section 717 of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as
   amended, 42 U.S.C.  791 et seq.  MD-715 provides a roadmap for creating effective equal
   employment opportunity (EEO)  programs for all federal employees as required by Title VII
   and the Rehabilitation Act.

•  Work aggressively with Regional EEO officers to develop  briefing strategies for Regional
   management teams.  OCR's Affirmative Employment and Diversity  staff will  monitor all
   plans (Regional  and headquarters) and  establish a metric for  determining  progress in
   achieving "model EEO status."

•  Continue timely processing of complaints of discrimination  based on sexual orientation and
   update policy, as necessary.

•  Continue  monitoring of the  implementation  of  Agency policy  on  harassment  and
   discrimination in the workplace.

•  Link the Agency's applicant flow data with  the existing database for workforce diversity.
   OCR will engage the Office of Human Resources in the development of more meaningful
   and effective recruitment plans.

•  Conduct a  comparative analysis  of  the U.S. Equal  Employment Opportunity (EEO)
   Commission's reporting  requirements covering FY 2009-2011. The EEOC  requires that each
   federal  agency  submit  an annual  report  summarizing the  Agency's  EEO  complaints
   processing  activity.  This report is entitled the EEO Form 462 report.  The requirements for
   this report, including the new  format and layout, were summarized in the EEOC Form 462,
   Annual Federal  Equal  Employment  Opportunity  Statistical  Report of  Discrimination
   Complaints Instructions document.

•  Work with  the Office of Human Resources, appropriate program offices and Regional offices
   to affect recruitment strategies that will result in  two percent of the Agency's workforce
   being comprised of employees with disabilities.

•  Ensure that less than 15 percent of all Title VII complaints will exceed  the established
   timeframes.

•  Continue working with EPA's Office of General Counsel to close and resolve  all Title VI
   cases in a timely manner according to EPA established regulations.

As a result of these activities, the Agency's mission will  be supported by  a workforce that is as
diverse as the communities it serves, goal oriented, and treated in a fair and non-discriminatory
manner.
                                          478

-------
Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program  supports  multiple  strategic  objectives.  Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$182.0) This increase  reflects the recalculation  of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-1.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$100.0) This reflects a decrease in classroom training sessions and a shift to  more on-
       line, webinars and teleconferencing trainings.

    •   (-$11.0) This decrease in travel costs  reflects our effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$212.0)  This reflects a decrease  to contract support following evaluation of program
       needs as part of the effort to reduce base program resources.

    •   (-$34.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline activities in  both  administrative   and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

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; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The ADA Amendments Act
of 2008, OWBPA as amended; ADEA as amended EEOC Management Directive 715; Executive
Orders  13163, 13164, 13078, 13087,  13171, 11478, 13125, 13096,  13230,  13270 July 3, 2002
(Tribal Colleges), 13339 May 13, 2004 (Asian American Participation in Federal Programs).
                                          479

-------
                                                  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 2010
Enacted
$42,662.0
$746.0
$43,408.0
250.6
FY 2010
Actuals
$42,826.7
$658.7
$43,485.4
240.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$42,662.0
$746.0
$43,408.0
250.6
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$45,352.0
$750.0
$46,102.0
248.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,690.0
$4.0
$2,694.0
-2.5
Program Project Description:

The Agency's Legal Advice:  Environmental program provides legal representational services,
legal counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities. Resources for legal
services for other support activities necessary for the operation of the Agency are included in the
Legal Advice: Support program.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency relies upon  sound legal advice in carrying out its environmental mission. In FY
2012, legal  advice to environmental programs  will  continue  to  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.

In FY 2012,  the Agency will continue to evaluate and reform the Title VI program, giving
emphasis to the evaluation of potential long-term institutional changes to the Agency's Title VI
complaint process. The Agency also will  direct legal resources towards supporting Regaining
Ground: Increased Compliance in Critical Areas. The Agency's focus on Compliance in Critical
Areas will need legal support for regulatory actions, legal  advice, and counsel. The Agency's
intention to  use 21st century electronic reporting and monitoring  tools in  combination with
market-based approaches to better protect human health and the environment marks a shift from
the old approach to compliance reporting. This  effort  represents a  departure  from current
practices  and  will  require  legal   advice  and  counsel   to  ensure  sound implementation.
                                          480

-------
Additionally, in FY 2012, EPA will direct legal resources towards supporting the Deep Water
Horizon investigation.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program  supports multiple strategic  objectives.  Currently,  there are  no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1,800.8) This  increase reflects a recalculation  of base  workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-4.9 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (+$167.07+1.0 FTE) This  funding  will support  the  Agency's  efforts to modernize
       compliance reporting and monitoring as  part of  the  regaining  ground compliance
       initiative. These resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $167.0, will support
       the development  of rules to incorporate electronic reporting and advanced monitoring
       requirements.

    •   (+$417.57+2.5 FTE) This reflects an increase for legal support for requirements under the
       Civil Rights  Act of 1964. The  additional  resources will  be used  to help resolve the
       Agency's backlog of pending Title VI complaints.

    •   (-$150.37-0.9  FTE) This reflects a reduction in legal support for the Appalachian surface
       coal mining interagency action plan, which includes 0.9 FTE and associated payroll of
       $150.3.  This  decrease in resources aligns with the  required effort to review program
       guidance and permit reviews associated with revised policies for the Appalachian surface
       coal mining.

    •   (-$4.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain  categories of spending for  efficiencies and reductions,  including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign processes  and streamline  activities  in both  administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$183.0) This represents an increase in non-pay base resources.

    •   (+$350.0) This reflects an increase in legal resources  to provide legal advice and counsel
       in support of the Deep Water Horizon Investigation.

    •   (-$74.0)  This decrease  in travel costs reflects  an  effort to reduce  the Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                           481

-------
Statutory Authority:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.  §§ 2000d - 2000d-7; Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 2 U.S.C. § 794;  Section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §1251; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20
U.S.C. §§ 1681 - 1688; The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101- 6107; Section
311 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.; EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
                                         482

-------
                                                        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 2010
Enacted
$14,419.0
$14,419.0
86.3
FY 2010
Actuals
$14,727.9
$14,727.9
83.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$14,419.0
$14,419.0
86.3
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$15,873.0
$15,873.0
83.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,454.0
$1,454.0
-2.9
Program Project Description:

The Legal Advice: Support program  provides legal representational services, legal counseling
and legal support for all activities necessary for the operation of the Agency. This program
focuses on administrative requirements determined by  statutes,  GAO decisions and  federal
agency regulations.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support will continue to
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 Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,457.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base  workforce costs for existing
       FTE.
                                          483

-------
   •   (-2.9 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (-$1.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign processes  and streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$29.0) This decrease  in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (+$27.0) This represents an increase in non-pay base resources.

Statutory Authority:

Toxic Substances Control Act,  15 USC 2601 et seq.; Pollution Prevention Act, 42 USC 13101 et
seq.; Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act,  21 U.S.C. 346a; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act,  42 U.S.C. 11023; Federal Water Pollution  Control Act, 33  U.S.C.  1251 et seq.; Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, 33  U.S.C.  1401 et seq.;  Solid Waste  Disposal  Act as  Amended  by the  Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),  42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq., Sections 2002, 3001 - 3023,
4001 - 4010, 6001 - 6004,  7003 -  7006, 8001 - 8007, and 9001 - 9010;  Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1321, Section 311;  Oil Pollution Act (OPA),  33 U.S.C. § 2701 - 2762,
Sections  1001 - 7002; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42
U.S.C. § 11001 et seq., Sections 302-304, 311-313, and 325, 326; Mercury Export Ban Act
(MEBA), Public Law No. 110-414; EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
                                          484

-------
                                                       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 2010
Enacted
$3,271.0
$3,271.0
2.0

FY 2010
Actuals
$3,146.2
$3,146.2
1.9

FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$3,271.0
$3,271.0
2.0

FY 2012
Pres Budget
$3,283.0
$3,283.0
2.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$12.0
$12.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Regional Science and Technology program (RS&T) activities support all of the Agency's
national programs (including enforcement) and goals by supplying laboratory analysis,  field
monitoring and  sampling,  and through  efforts to build tribal capacity  for environmental
monitoring and  assessment.  RS&T supports the purchase of equipment for the  Regional
laboratories, field investigation teams, and mobile  laboratory  units, as well as equipment
required for laboratory quality assurance and quality control.

The RS&T program provides essential expertise for a multitude of national programs, including
but not limited  to ambient air,  water quality,  monitoring activities,  and  areas involving
environmental biology, microbiology, chemistry, and criminal investigations.  EPA has made
significant  strides toward  improving environmental data collection and laboratory analytical
capacity and  capability to strengthen science-based decision-making.  The program's applied
science expertise is used to develop and modify analytical methods for specialty work such as
emerging chemicals of concern  and also provides scientific consultation to Agency, state, and
tribal  partners. Funding  for equipment  is  essential  for  continued progress and enhanced
capabilities in order to respond to emergencies, emerging environmental issues.

The RS&T program provides in-house expertise and technical capabilities in the generation of
data for Agency decisions  and  differs from the  Agency's research operation by focusing on
applied  science needs rather than  short or long term research.  RS&T resources  support the
development of critical and timely environmental data, rapid data review in emerging situations,
and development of enhanced capabilities for proper environmental assessment of chemical
warfare agents.
                                          485

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, RS&T resources will continue to support Regional implementation of the Agency's
statutory mandates through  field operations  for environmental  sampling and monitoring.
Regional laboratories perform  environmental  analytical  testing,  monitoring, special  studies,
method development,  quality assurance oversight,  and data management support.   Direct
laboratory  support  also  increases  efficiencies  in Regional   program  management   and
implementation by allowing the Regional offices to focus on addressing environmental issues
which  may be specific to certain geographic areas in the Nation (e.g.,  mountain top  mining,
wood treating operations, oil refining, etc.).

The Agency will stay abreast of rapidly  changing technologies (i.e., new software, rapid  analysis
instrumentation,  and new analytical capabilities  as well as new remote  sensing technologies),
that allow EPA to collect and analyze samples more cost effectively, quickly, and/or detect lower
levels of contaminants, and to assay new and emerging contaminants of  concern.  The Agency
will enhance laboratory and field monitoring capacity and capability to ensure that it implements
critical environmental monitoring and rapid analysis, partners with existing laboratory networks
and state/local organizations, and develops enhanced response, recovery and cleanup procedures.

EPA's Regional  laboratories  contribute to various  aspects  of the Agency's performance
measures in  each of the major Agency  programs.  For example,  the  Civil and Criminal
Enforcement performance assessment measures are supported through  significant technical and
analytical activities  for civil   and  criminal   enforcement  cases,  including  the  Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Water Act, and Superfund
programs. The laboratories analyze samples  associated  with a  variety of illicit activities
including unpermitted discharges, illegal storage and/or disposal of hazardous wastes, and illegal
dumping.  Resulting data are used by the Agency's Criminal Investigation Division and by
Assistant U.S. Attorneys to support prosecution  of civil and criminal cases.

Other  examples  of activities that support results measurement  include operating laboratory
equipment such as Standard Reference  Photometers, which  are used to ensure that the  national
network  of  ozone ambient  monitors accurately measure ozone  concentrations in support of
Mobile Source and Air Toxics performance assessment measures.  Also, many 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 Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$19.0)   This increase  reflects the recalculation  of base  workforce costs for  existing
       FTE.
                                          486

-------
   •   (+$10.0) This increase reflects additional contract resources for this program.

   •   (-$4.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$13.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work to  redesign  processes and  streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERCLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA; FIFRA.
                                           487

-------
                                                    Integrated Environmental Strategies
                              Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$18,917.0
$18,917.0
82.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$18,366.6
$18,366.6
89.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$18,917.0
$18,917.0
82.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$17,509.0
$17,509.0
57.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($1,408.0)
($1,408.0)
-25.6
Program Project Description:

Efforts under the Integrated Environmental  Strategies program  (formerly  titled  Regulatory
Innovation)  continue to focus on  priority  cross-agency management and policy issues  - in
particular, those central to creating more sustainable communities and businesses and developing
strategies for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency. These activities, carried
out in collaboration with  other Agency programs, support the Agency's core  mission  of
protecting human health and the environment by providing tools and resources to create stronger,
prosperous,  and more economically and environmentally resilient  communities and businesses
Recognizing a constrained  fiscal environment, EPA is reducing or  terminating lower priority
voluntary programs to increase and refocus efforts on promoting sustainable development and a
greener economy.  EPA considers these efforts to be a higher priority because these efforts  have
greater promise  for yielding environmental  results,  and they  are  directly  central to the
Administrator's priority for safe, clean communities and sustainable  development.

A key activity of this program is the  development of effective policies, practices and tools to
promote sustainable communities.   One important approach involves  helping community and
government leaders meet environmental standards through innovative community and building
design, policies, and infrastructure investment  strategies. EPA accomplishes  this work by: (1)
collaborating with federal agencies and state, regional, tribal, and local governments as well as
non-governmental organizations, developers, and other private sector stakeholders; (2) providing
community  technical  assistance;   and   (3)  developing   standards  and  sustainable  design
approaches.   This work fosters outcomes in the built environment that protect environmental
quality and public health while encouraging the adoption of practices that promote economically
strong communities and avoid disproportionate harm to disadvantaged communities.

In addition,  this program project develops new strategies that promote a greener economy by
improving the environmental performance of businesses  and other enterprises, encouraging
environmental sustainability in the  delivery of goods and services, and promoting transparency
and greater  use of information on  environmental issues.  This program  also includes program
evaluation and strategic management of agency operations.
                                          488

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, activities will include:

Promoting Smart Growth  and Sustainable Design:  EPA works across its program offices and
with other  federal agencies,  state and  local governments,  non-governmental  organizations,
developers,  and  other  private stakeholders  to help communities  grow  in  ways  that may
strengthen their economies, protect the  environment, and preserve their  heritage.   Program
activities  include on-the-ground efforts to provide communities with tools and assistance  to
address specific smart growth and sustainable design barriers and implementation  strategies.
Examples of these activities include working with a local government to help  incorporate land
use strategies into a climate action plan or providing policy options to a state that is seeking to
better align water and transportation infrastructure investments. The program's  policy activities,
tool development, and  investigations on  emerging trends  provide the foundation for this
assistance. In FY 2012,  EPA will continue to provide technical assistance and develop tools to
assist communities,  particularly rural  areas  and those that  are  disadvantaged  or have been
adversely impacted by contamination and environmental  degradation. Major project areas  are
described below:

    •   Engaging Federal Partners. EPA, together with the U.S. Departments of Transportation
       (DOT)  and Housing and Urban Development  (HUD),  formed the  Partnership  for
       Sustainable Communities in 2009. EPA is working with its program and Regional offices
       to implement activities related to the Partnership, such as identifying strategies that may
       help  communities access federal resources in an easier and more streamlined manner.
       Selected areas of work within EPA include working with program offices to: (1) explore
       innovative  approaches  to  sustainable  water infrastructure implementation; 2) facilitate
       area  planning  assistance,  (3) identify  and remove  barriers  to  cleaning up  and
       redeveloping  contaminated  sites,  (4)  promote environmental justice,  and (5) develop
       climate change mitigation and adaptation  strategies.  In FY  2012, EPA  will work  to
       catalyze changes  in federal rules, regulations, policies, programs, and spending to foster
       sustainable growth and communities.  In addition to DOT and HUD, EPA will provide
       support and smart  growth expertise  to other federal  agencies  such  as  United  States
       Department of Agriculture, Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency,  Centers  for
       Disease Control and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help them
       achieve greater environmental benefits through their programs, policies, regulations, and
       resources while meeting their core agency objectives.

    •   Providing Technical Assistance. The Agency also provides a  variety of direct technical
       assistance to state and local  governments to promote more  sustainable community
       development outcomes at the neighborhood, regional,  and state levels. EPA responds to
       communities' demands for strategies that can help them grow in a manner that minimizes
       the impact of development.  EPA provides support at the local level to identify ways to
       ensure  that growth protects natural and cultural resources. Analytical efforts are focused
75 EPA's Smart Growth Program was recently reorganized into the Office of Sustainable Communities. Additional information
on the program can be found at: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.
                                           489

-------
       on creating  and field-testing tools to help facilitate better  development and public
       investment decisions.

       In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide technical assistance to tribal, state, regional,
       and local governments as they seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implement green
       infrastructure approaches, incorporate sustainable design practices, or promote equitable
       development. EPA is committed to promoting sustainable approaches to growth and
       development  that provide  multiple benefits for this and future  generations.  EPA will
       accomplish these goals by: (1) expanding the current set of smart growth and sustainable
       design implementation tools and development mechanisms, (2) delivering assistance with
       these tools to a larger number of recipient communities, and (3)  providing assistance to
       communities  through third party organizations, such as the Governors'  Institute on
       Community Design.

    •   Developing Tools and Other Community Resources. Because smart growth development
       and sustainable design approaches are dependent, in part, on local codes, ordinances and
       standards, EPA works with and convenes a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure that
       rules  and practices  guiding  the  development,  redevelopment,  and  operations  of
       communities  and buildings support more environmentally sustainable outcomes.  For
       example, in FY 2012, EPA will work with stakeholders to create  model rural sustainable
       community development and design policies and code changes. EPA also is developing
       technical analyses, guidance, and implementation tools to help communities ensure that
       development projects are sited, designed,  and constructed in a manner that is  consistent
       with the communities' environmental and health goals.  In FY 2012, EPA will  expand its
       analytical research  and policy assessment  to develop more  place-based  tools and
       resources for communities across the urban-to-rural spectrum, focusing specifically on
       sustainable economic growth and climate change mitigation strategies.

(In FY 2012,  the Sustainable Communities/Smart Growth program  will be funded at  $9.91
million under  the Integrated Environmental Strategies program,  and $1.28 million  under the
Brownfields program.)

Promoting a Greener Economy: EPA will continue to build upon prior  cross-media experience
by identifying and developing strategies in partnership with states, other federal agencies, and
other  external  stakeholders  for  simultaneously  encouraging environmental  protection and
economic progress with a near term focus on:

    •   Supporting a cross-agency  effort to promote greener, sustainable  products, and to ensure
       that the  Agency  participates effectively in interagency  and external discussions  of
       product-related issues including labeling  and "greenwashing" (i.e., making unfounded
       claims about the environmental and  safety  attributes of products).

    •   Articulating and operationalizing strategies through which EPA  can promote  and drive
       sustainability in businesses, governments and other enterprises to allow the economy to
       grow while at the same time shrinking its environmental footprint.
                                          490

-------
    •   Developing the potential to incentivize improved environmental performance in business
       through disclosure  of information to  communities, investors, and other interested
       audiences.

    •   Coordinating EPA  activities to  support  sustainable workforce  skills  needed  in  an
       increasingly green economy,  and to ensure that the expertise, resources, and opportunities
       available within the Agency's programs effectively support those efforts in partnership
       with other  federal  agencies,  states, communities, and educational  institutions. (In FY
       2012, the Promoting a Greener Economy program will be funded at $2.91 million.)

Program Evaluation and Performance Analysis: EPA uses program evaluation and performance
analysis  to  assure  the public that  Agency programs are  protecting human  health  and the
environment effectively and efficiently.  EPA is developing a body of program evaluations and
metrics that support evidence-based decisions about program implementation strategies  that
work most effectively.  This is particularly important in an era of fiscal responsibility that calls
for greater federal accountability and public transparency.   EPA acknowledges that rigorous,
independent empirical evidence plays an important role in effective environmental policy and is
committed to publicly  disseminating  complete  evaluation findings,  regardless of  whether
conclusions are consistent with Agency expectations.

In FY 2012, increased resources are  requested to provide EPA headquarters and Regional offices
support for evaluations.   Specific  consideration will be given to evaluations that (a)  assess
program effectiveness and efficiency; (b) provide insights on how the use of new approaches
may help better achieve program goals and fulfill the Agency's  mission; (c) address issues of
strategic importance to the Agency, or address cross-cutting issues that present challenges to
multiple programs; (d) draw on social science research and tools to evaluate the impact of EPA
activities on the behavior of regulated entities;  and (e) assess the statistical rigor and validity of
EPA's outcome measurement data.   Resources will  support EPA's performance  management
training regimen (online and classroom), which enables EPA  staff and managers to use essential
tools  such as logic modeling and  performance measurement.  Resources  also  will support
outcomes and impact measurement projects in collaboration with states and other co-regulators.

As part of the Administration's Program Evaluation Initiative, funding is requested in FY 2012
to improve EPA's capacity to incorporate evaluations into new initiatives, evaluate the impact of
policy interventions, and assess the  outcomes and impacts of EPA's priorities based on targeted
needs.   EPA  will  improve  staff expertise to promote rigorous, evidence-based evaluation
methods for transparent external and in-house evaluations, and manage contracts with third-party
evaluators.  As part of this capacity building effort, EPA will support efforts to make Agency
program data available to the public  and enable external evaluators to assess programs.

This program  project will also conduct performance  analysis to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of Agency programs and  operations. These predominantly internal analyses focus on
ensuring EPA's operations and programs are coordinated, aligned, and maximized to achieve
EPA's mission. For example, EPA is using "lean government" tools to improve the efficiency of
internal business processes. (In FY 2012, the Program Evaluation and Performance Analysis will
be funded at $4.69 million.)
                                           491

-------
Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program  supports  multiple  strategic  objectives.  Currently,  there  are  no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$368.0) This increase reflects  the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$506.07+2.0 FTE)  This is an increase  in  resources to implement EPA's program
       evaluation  strategy  and build  evaluation  capacity, which  is  consistent  with  the
       Administration's  Program Evaluation Initiative.  The change includes  2.0  FTE,  and
       $306.0 in associated payroll.

    •   (+$935.07+3.0 FTE)  This reflects  a realignment of existing 3.0 FTE and  associated
       payroll supporting the performance analysis function consistent with the reorganization
       of the program. The change includes 3.0 FTE and $459.0 in associated payroll.

    •   (+$4,094.07+4.0 FTE) This reflects an increase in funding to support the Smart Growth
       program  as  part  of the Agency's  participation  in the  Sustainable  Communities
       Partnership. The change includes  4.0 FTE, and $612.0 in associated payroll.

    •   (-$3,882.07-14.8 FTE) This reflects a reduction in past regulatory innovation programs to
       focus more tightly on efforts that help to promote a greener, more sustainable economy.
       EPA considers these efforts to be  a higher priority because these efforts have greater
       promise  for  yielding  environmental results,  and  they  are  directly central  to  the
       Administrator's priority for safe, clean communities and  sustainable development.  The
       change includes -14.8 FTE, and -$2,264.0 in associated payroll.

    •   (-$1,272.07-8.0 FTE)  This decrease represents the discontinuation of the Effective Use of
       Environmental Stewardship program which is consistent with the reorganization of the
       program. The change includes  -8.0 FTE, and -$1,224.0 in associated  payroll. EPA
       considers these efforts to be a higher priority because these efforts have greater promise
       for yielding environmental results, and they are directly  central to  the Administrator's
       priority for safe, clean communities and sustainable development.

    •   (-$1,8057-11.8 FTE) This decrease represents the discontinuation of several programs: the
       State Innovation Grants (SIG) (-8.0 FTE), Innovative Pilot Testing (IPT) (-1.8 FTE), and
       a reduction to Promoting a Greener Economy (PGE) (-2.0 FTE) due to an Agency effort
       to focus  more on efforts that help to promote a more  community-based sustainable
       economy. This change includes -11.8 FTE,  and -$1,805.0 in associated payroll.

    •   (-$52.0) This decrease in travel  costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          492

-------
   •   (-$150.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative  targets certain categories of spending  for efficiencies and  reductions,
       including  advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$150.0)  This  reflects the elimination of EPA's support of the EPA/State Symposium
       (ESS). This support will be  mitigated through efficiencies and support of the ESS  by
       other participants.

Statutory Authority:

CWA, Section 104(b)(3); CAA, Section 104(b)(3).
                                           493

-------
                                        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 2010
Enacted
$19,404.0
$19,404.0
104.2
FY 2010
Actuals
$19,041.3
$19,041.3
109.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$19,404.0
$19,404.0
104.2
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$22,326.0
$22,326.0
101.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,922.0
$2,922.0
-2.7
Program Project Description:

EPA ranks second among federal departments and agencies in the number of regulations issued
annually (typically over 450). EPA takes its regulatory responsibility seriously and has invested
in a centralized regulatory and economic management and analysis function to encourage and
support the development of high quality regulations.

The Regulatory Economic, Management and  Analysis program  strengthens EPA's regulatory,
economic, and policy development efforts. The program focuses on ensuring an efficient and
effective regulatory  and  policy  planning  and  decision  process, including consistent  and
appropriate policy and economic analysis. The program supports consideration of an appropriate
set of alternatives during regulatory  decision-making and works to  quantify the costs  and
benefits of environmental  regulations  and policies.  Resources  are used to manage the  EPA
regulatory, policy, and guidance development process; make information  on EPA regulatory
activities  available  to  the  public  to  improve  transparency  and  encourage  meaningful
participation; develop, identify and analyze various regulatory and non-regulatory approaches
and policy options; identify successful strategies and regulatory approaches; and address policy
priorities including considering impacts on small business and governmental entities.

Objectives of the program include:

    •   Implementing efficient and effective internal procedures that facilitate timely decisions.

    •   Ensuring that Agency  decision-making processes are invested with high  quality  and
       timely  information,   including  relevant  science,  policy,  economic  factors,   and
       consideration  of an appropriate  range of  alternatives  to achieve the  best overall
       environmental results.
                                          494

-------
   •   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 expected distribution of the costs, benefits  and impacts of regulatory
       options.

   •   Building  and communicating  a more  comprehensive  picture of the  qualitative  and
       quantitative  economic  benefits, costs  and impacts  of environmental  policies  and
       programs in EPA's economic analyses,  and delivering sound and timely economic,
       science, regulatory,  and  program analyses to support informed 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), to address potential
       burdens on small entities.

   •   Working with state representatives to minimize state administrative reporting burdens.

   •   Increasing the transparency of and encouraging public involvement in EPA's regulatory
       and policy development  efforts through improved use  of collaborative networking and
       implementation of information technology.

   •   Improving program effectiveness  and efficiency  through  analysis and  information
       sharing.

   •   Promoting  appropriate  implementation   of  the  Administrative  Procedures  Act,
       Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Program activities planned for FY 2012 include:

   •   Managing the Agency's  internal Action  Development Process, ensuring appropriate
       engagement across EPA's headquarters and Regional offices, and leading EPA's review
       of other agency and department actions.   The program will  provide training, resources,
       and tools to EPA staff on the Agency's Action Development process, Economic Analysis
       Guidelines,  and related requirements (e.g., OMB Circular A-4 on Regulatory Analysis).
       EPA will review  and revise its economic guidelines so that they remain current with
       advancements and reflect best practices in the profession.76

   •   Participating in the development of the Agency actions, implementing policy priorities
       (e.g., environmental  justice, climate adaptation) in rulemakings, and providing technical
       assistance when needed to help meet Agency goals.   This will be accomplished by
  Please refer to: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html
                                          495

-------
       characterizing  the  impacts of the Agency's actions,  quantifying the environmental
       improvements and economic impacts of the Agency's regulatory programs.

   •   Developing tools, best practices,  and standard  operating procedures related to better
       communicating the goals and requirements of new EPA regulations. For example, EPA
       is investigating how multi-media and social media tools may be utilized to help regulated
       entities  understand new  regulatory  actions. By  providing  better understanding and
       encouraging more timely  innovation  in  environmental technology, the  states and
       regulated community will be able to more quickly implement new standards.

   •   Chairing Small Business Advocacy Panels and leading implementation of the Regulatory
       Flexibility Act (RFA).  Unless the Agency certifies that a rule does not have a Significant
       Economic Impact on a Substantial  Number Of Small Entities,  the RFA requires a formal
       analysis of the potential adverse economic  impacts on small entities, completion of a
       Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), preparation of a Small
       Entity Compliance Guide  (final rule  stage),  and Agency review of the rule within  10
       years of promulgation.

       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 integration of ecological and economic
       models to value improvements in ecological functions and services, establishing
       improved measures of the economic benefits of reducing health risks to children, and
       improvements in surveys and other data collection tools used to gather information on
       economic costs and benefits from environmental programs.

   •   Evaluating EPA's ability  to fully  and accurately measure and articulate the economic
       costs and impact of enacted environmental regulations, including exploring whether and
       why EPA's predictions of costs and benefits may differ from actual costs and benefits
       incurred by society to comply with EPA's regulations.  A variety of analytical approaches
       will continue to be explored to measure and improve the quality and consistency of our
       regulations.  Methodologies include using surveys, conducting statistical  analyses  of
       published  economic data, and drawing on expertise and first-hand knowledge of actual
       practices in  the  fields of pollution  control  technology development, investment and
       operations.

   •   Facilitating  communication between the  scientific  community  and Agency policy
       analysts by supporting workshops on priority economic and environmental policy issues.
       Examples  include analytical tools  to measure environmental justice impacts, measuring
       the  economic benefits of ecological services, measuring human health benefits with a
       focus  on risks to children, evaluating market mechanisms and incentives, developing
       improved risk assessment methods to serve economic analyses, and methods to address
       uncertainties in risk and economic analyses77. The program will support the utilization of
77 For more information on these workshops, please refer to:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpagesAVorkshopSeries.html
                                          496

-------
       high quality outside technical peer review of influential economic models and methods
       used in developing the Agency's regulations.

   •   Improving the focus  on  water protection activities by  enhancing EPA's capacity to
       analyze and estimate the economic benefits of water protection activities, and evaluating
       policy  issues surrounding the  effectiveness of applying economic incentives,  such as
       tradable permits  and offset programs. This includes addressing pressing water quality
       issues like nutrient  and sediment loadings and their adverse effects on ecology of the
       Chesapeake Bay and the nation's urban waters.

   •   The program will support EPA's initiative, Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in
       Critical Areas. EPA is concerned about the level of non-compliance with environmental
       laws.  The Agency intends to enforce laws in a consistent and equitable manner to ensure
       that the environmental benefits of laws passed by Congress are realized by the public.
        A  new enforcement  paradigm will  help EPA and its state and tribal partners more
       effectively protect communities, keep pace with our responsibilities, and assure a level
       playing field for corporate America.  To support this Agency initiative, resources will be
       dedicated to review the cost/benefits of monitoring, transparency, compliance, and how
       these analyses are used in the regulatory development process.   Additionally,  existing
       rules will  be  reviewed  to determine more  effective and  efficient ways to improve
       compliance reporting, with an emphasis towards electronic reporting and monitoring.

   •   The program will improve the National Center for Environmental Economics  (NCEE)
       capabilities for: providing original analyses and expanding technical assistance support
       for economic benefit-cost and  risk analyses pertaining to EPA regulations; developing
       better  information  on the economic  implications of environmental  regulations  and
       policies on the competitiveness of domestic industries, including consideration of trade,
       employment and productivity effects; increasing efforts to integrate economic and natural
       science models to support economic benefits analyses.

   •   The  program  will  support enhanced regulatory  support  across  the  Agency  for the
       development of 1) science-based methods to assess disproportionate health impacts; 2)
       advances in the measurement of the beneficial effects  of reducing pollutants, including
       supporting analysis  and  development of methods to improve the utility of cancer and
       non-cancer risk assessment consistent with recommendations from the National Academy
       of Sciences; and,  3) supporting research to explore application of the comparative risk
       assessment framework and tools to conduct disproportionate impact analysis.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program supports  multiple  strategic  objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
                                          497

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$109.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$405.07-2.7  FTE) This decrease impacts  Regulatory Economic, Management and
       Analysis  administrative activities. The reduced resources include 2.7 FTE, and $405.0 in
       associated payroll.

    •   (+$1,100.0) This increase supports enhanced regulatory support across the Agency for
       the development of 1) science-based methods to assess disproportionate health impacts;
       2) advances in the measurement of the benefits of reducing pollutants; and 3) supporting
       research to explore application of the comparative risk assessment framework and tools
       to conduct disproportionate impact analysis.

    •   (+$2,034.0)  This  reflects  an  increase  in  resources  for  the  National Center  for
       Environmental Economics (NCEE) capabilities for: providing  analyses and expanding
       technical  assistance support for economic benefit-cost  and risk analyses pertaining to
       EPA regulations;  developing better information  on  the  economic implications  of
       environmental regulations  and policies  on the competitiveness of domestic industries,
       including consideration of trade, employment and productivity effects; increasing efforts
       to integrate economic and natural science models  to support economic benefits analyses;
       and increasing  participation in the development and modification of Agency science
       policy in response  to advances in risk assessment methods and recommendations from
       expert institutions such as the National Academy of Science.

    •   (+$200.0) This  reflects an increase in resources  to support EPA's Regaining Ground:
       Increasing Compliance  in Critical Areas investment for the cost/benefits of monitoring,
       transparency,  and  compliance; and how  these  analyses  are  used in the regulatory
       development process.

   •   (-$95.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative  targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and  supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to  redesign  processes  and streamline activities  in both administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$21.0) This decrease  in travel  costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint  by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          498

-------
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(TV)(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.
                                       499

-------
                                                                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 2010
Enacted
$6,2 78.0
$6,278.0
25.2
FY 2010
Actuals
$6,157.2
$6,157.2
24.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,2 78.0
$6,278.0
25.2
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$5,867.0
$5,867.0
28.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($411.0)
($411.0)
3.1
Program Project Description:

Congress established the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in  1978 and gave it a broad
mandate to advise the Administrator on a wide range of highly visible and important scientific
matters to ensure that EPA's technical products are of the highest quality.  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, draw on a
balanced range of non-EPA scientists and technical specialists from academia,  communities,
states, independent research institutions, and industry. This program provides management and
technical support to these Advisory committees charged with providing EPA's Administrator
with independent advice and peer review on scientific and technical aspects of environmental
problems, regulations, and research planning.78

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  the  SAB will conduct 40 reviews to  provide  scientific and technical  advice  on
topical areas  related to  the  technical basis of EPA National  Drinking Water Standards for
drinking water contaminants, EPA revised National  Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria
air pollutants, technical assessments of Integrated Risk Information  System (IRIS) chemicals,
ambient water quality criteria, risk management technologies,  economic benefit methods and
analyses, and EPA's research and science programs.  The SAB plans to produce 30 advisory
reports on these areas. (In FY 2012, the funding for the Science Advisory Board will be $5.87
million and 28.3 FTE)
 Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sab/ for further information.
                                          500

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.  Currently,  there  are  no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$427.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (+$510.07+3.4 FTE)  This increase supports EPA's plans to have the Science Advisory
       Board review the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the  six criteria pollutants
       on a five year cycle. This change includes 3.4 FTE and $510.0 in associated payroll.

    •   (-$102.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$387.0)  This reflects  a  reduction in additional resources provided in  FY 2010  for
       accelerated review of Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemicals.

    •   (-$5.0) This reflects a reduction as  part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work to redesign processes and  streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Environmental  Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act  (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.
                                           501

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   502

-------
                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance SuperrUnd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$310,238.8
$72,841.7
$29,896.7
$871.9
$489.4
$76,052.0
$490,390.5
410.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$324,965.0
$76,521.0
$33,931.0
$916.0
$536.0
$81,431.0
$518,300.0
408.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,727.0
$3,603.0
$5,000.0
$12.0
$31.0
$2,949.0
$21,322.0
-2.6
Program Project Description:

Environmental  Program  Management  (EPM)  resources  in  the  Facilities Infrastructure  and
Operations Program are used to fund rental of office and laboratory space, utilities, and security.
This program is  also used to  manage activities and  support  services in many centralized
administrative areas within EPA, including health and  safety,  environmental compliance,
occupational  health, medical  monitoring, fitness/wellness  and  safety, and  environmental
management functions.  Resources for this program also support a full range of ongoing facilities
management services, including facilities maintenance and operations,  space planning, shipping
and  receiving,  property management,  printing  and  reproduction,  mail  management,  and
transportation services.  Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency.

This program also includes the Agency's Protection Services Detail (PSD) that 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 including scheduling,  local support, travel arrangements, and managing
special equipment needed to carry out its protective function.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency reviews space needs on a regular basis, and continues to implement a long-term
space consolidation  plan that includes reducing the number of occupied facilities, consolidating
space within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square footage where practical.  From FY
                                          503

-------
2007 through  FY 2010,  EPA  released  approximately  250,000  square feet of  space  at
headquarters and facilities  nationwide resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over
$5.3 million in EPM dollars over this period.  In FY 2011 through FY 2014, EPA plans  to
release additional space for more savings. These achieved savings and potential savings partially
offset EPA's escalating rent budget. For example, replacement leases for regional offices  in
Boston, Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle  are significantly higher than those previously
negotiated.  The Agency will continue to manage  its lease agreements with the General Services
Administration and other private landlords by conducting reviews and verifying  that billing
statements are correct.  For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $170.81 million for rent,
$11.22 million for utilities, $29.27 million for security, $11.54 million for transit subsidy, and
$6.71 million for Regional Moves in the EPM appropriation.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve operating efficiency and encourage the  use  of
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) 1342379, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management.  Additionally,  the Agency will attain the Executive Order's
environmental performance goals related  to buildings  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 building standards.  In FY  2012, the
Agency plans to reduce energy utilization (or improve energy efficiency) by approximately 37
billion British Thermal Units or three percent.  EPA should end FY 2012 using approximately
21% less energy than it did in FY 2003.

EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, expands
upon EO 13423 and requires additional reductions to greenhouse gas emissions.  EPA will meet
the requirements of EO 13514 through:

•      Managing  existing  building   systems  to  reduce consumption  of  energy,  water,  and
       materials;

•      Identifying opportunities to  consolidate  and dispose of existing assets, optimize  real
       property; and portfolio performance, and reduce environmental impacts; and

•      Implementing best management  practices in  energy-efficient management of  real
       property including Agency labs and data centers.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to 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 EO  13423.
79 Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3514/. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance', and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/. Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management


                                           504

-------
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.

As part of the Agency's commitment to promoting employee health and wellness, the Agency
collected data to assess its health and wellness programs nationwide. The data will be used to
establish a baseline from FY 2010, which the Agency will use to explore options to improve
health and wellness programs, and to develop performance improvement targets and  an action
plan with the goal of enhancing the overall quality of life of EPA employees. In the interim, EPA
has a short-term plan that includes the following initiatives:

•      Work with the General Services Administration (GSA) to expand health and wellness
       programs in GSA-owned  and leased facilities. Some options include  healthier  food
       choices, increasing fitness center activities, and expanding health unit capabilities.

•      Enhance  outreach efforts  to   employees  to  increase  fitness center  memberships,
       registration for seminars and educational programs, and inoculations and screenings in
       health units.

•      Establish or expand sports competitions and fitness challenges to build or strengthen our
       fitness programs nationwide.

•      Offer more health educational classes and seminars to increase employee  attendance and
       participation.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(010) Cumulative
percentage reduction in
GreenHouse Gas
(GHG) Scopes 1 & 2
emissions.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target
5
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(098) Cumulative
percentage reduction in
energy consumption.
FY 2010
Target
15
FY 2010
Actual
18.3
FY2011
CR
Target
18
FY 2012
Target
21
Units
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
   •   (+$1,263.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.
                                          505

-------
•  (-4.1 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
   rates.

•  (+$15,301.0) This change reflects a net effect of the projected contractual rent increase,
   EPM's rent reduction realized from  the space  consolidation  effort,  as well  as  a
   rebalancing of cost methodologies between the EPM,  S&T, and  SF appropriations. The
   space  consolidation  effort  provides cost avoidances that help to avoid a portion of the
   projected rent increases.

•  (-$2,293.0)  This reflects a decrease  in utility costs, which includes Research Triangle
   Park  (RTF) and agency-wide  facilities as a result of utility efficiencies created by
   improvement in building infrastructure, space consolidations, and heat recovery projects.

•  (+$1,269.0) This change reflects an increase in security costs.

•  (-$83.0) This reflects a decrease in transit subsidy costs based on projected need.

•  (-$3,741.0)  This reduction reflects a decrease in the Regional Moves resources as a result
   of the  completion of the Puerto Rico and Region 10 moves.

•  (+$162.0) This reflects an increase in operations and maintenance costs at EPA owned
   regional laboratories.

•  (-$416.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects  an effort  to reduce the Agency's travel
   footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•  (-$434.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such
   as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
   totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
   mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

•  (-$1,607.0)  This reflects a reduction  as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
   This initiative targets certain categories of spending  for efficiencies and reductions,
   including advisory contracts, travel,  general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
   continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
   and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

•  (+$153.0 / +1.0 FTE) This change reflects realignment to the Facilities Infrastructure and
   Operations Program from the Acquisition Management Program to consolidate property
   management services into  a single function under the Office of Administration, which
   manages the Agency's facilities. This includes  1.0 FTE, and $153.0 in associated payroll.

•  (+$153.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects an increase to support administrative oversight, and
   includes 1.0 FTE, and $153.0 in associated payroll.
                                        506

-------
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; Energy Policy Act 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).
                                         507

-------
                                               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 2010
Enacted
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY 2010
Actuals
$86,883.5
$1,312.0
$28,192.2
$116,387.7
538.7
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$77,548.0
$512.0
$22,252.0
$100,312.0
535.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($5,286.0)
($603.0)
($5,238.0)
($11,127.0)
-12.0
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.  This includes developing,
managing, and supporting a goals-based management system consistent with the Government
Performance and Results  Act (GPRA) for the  Agency that involves strategic planning and
accountability  for environmental, fiscal,  and managerial results;  providing  policy,  systems,
training, reports,  and  oversight essential  for the financial operations of EPA;  managing the
Agency-wide Working Capital Fund; providing financial payment and support services for EPA
through three  finance centers, as well as specialized fiscal and accounting services for many
EPA programs; and managing the  Agency's annual  budget process.   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.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency will continue to provide high-quality resource stewardship to ensure that all Agency
programs operate with fiscal  responsibility and  management integrity and are efficiently and
consistently  delivered  nationwide  and demonstrate results.   This  is accomplished  through
leadership in better understanding program results and promoting effectiveness.

Early in FY 2012, the Agency will complete a  major milestone by deploying  a new core
financial system.   This extensive effort will improve both the  Agency's ability to meet its
                                          508

-------
fiduciary responsibilities as well as advance program goals and initiatives by better linking EPA
financial and program performance and providing timely and reliable financial data to inform
management  decision making.  For example,  the new core financial system  will  improve
efficiency by  automating quality control functions  as well as comply  with Congressional
direction and federal financial systems requirements. This work will be framed by the Agency's
Enterprise Architecture and will make use of enabling technologies for e-Gov initiatives.

 In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve its transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of
operations through improved coordination and  integration of internal control assessments over
financial activities as required under revised OMB Circular A-123 as well  as controls over
programmatic operations  under the Federal  Manager's Financial  Integrity Act  (FMFIA).
Improvements in internal controls will further support EPA's initiatives for improved financial
performance.  EPA  also  will continue  to ensure improved accessibility to  data to support
accountability, cost accounting, budget and performance integration, and management decision-
making.

Since the implementation of the Improper Payment Act of 2002, EPA has reviewed, sampled,
and monitored its payments to protect against  erroneous payments.  The Agency consistently
exceeds the government-wide performance goal of 2.5 percent with an average error rate of less
than 1 percent across all categories (grants, contracts, commodities, and travel/purchase card).
In addition, EPA  conducted statistical sampling  of  Clean  Water and Drinking Water  State
Revolving Fund payments to ensure controls are in  place for our largest grant  programs.
Payments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were also included in the
sample. In FY 2012, EPA will  continue these  activities to reduce even further the amount of
improper payments pursuant to the Improper Payment  Act of 2002, as amended by the Improper
Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (TPERA), (P.L. 111-204).

Performance Targets:

Work  under  this program supports  multiple  strategic objectives.   Currently,  there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$951.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-0.5  FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$150.0) This reflects realignments and corrections  to resources for  telephone, Local
       Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

   •   (+$3.0) This reflects  an adjustment to cover the cost of payroll processing at the Defense
       Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).
                                          509

-------
   •   (-$6,150.0) This decrease reduces support for the financial system modernization project
       (FSMP).

   •   (-$8.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the  Computer  Security  Incident  Response  Center from across  programs  to  the
       Information Security program.

   •   (-$113.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$119.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Annual Appropriations   Act;  CCA;  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.
                                          510

-------
                                                               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 2010
Enacted
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$33,272.6
$172.4
$23,820.8
$57,265.8
333.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$34,119.0
$163.0
$24,097.0
$58,379.0
348.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,715.0
($2.0)
($587.0)
$1,126.0
-14.0
Program Project Description:

Environmental  Programs  &  Management  (EPM)  resources  in  this  program  support
contract/acquisition management activities at Headquarters, regional offices, Research Triangle
Park,  North Carolina, and  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 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.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, between the Superfund and EPM accounts, at least $3 million in total acquisition
management resources will be used by EPA to train and develop its acquisition workforce, and to
strengthen its contractor training program—two efforts that mirror the President's guidelines for
civilian agencies in the Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for FY 2010-2014.
Resources will  support  the recruitment, retention, and hiring  of additional  members  of the
acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy  Act, as amended
(41 U.S.C.  401 et seq.).  Acquisition management  also will address information technology
needs that support management and the acquisition workforce.  In addition, EPA will take the
following steps to achieve acquisition savings efficiencies:

•      Eliminate contracts that are similar to or redundant in scope, or are no longer necessary to
       achieve the Agency's programmatic needs;

•      Eliminate  contract  requirements that contribute  programmatic  needs,  but may be
       combined with other Agency acquisitions to realize greater buying power via economies
       of scale: and
                                          511

-------
•      Use government wide procurement sources where available to reduce the need for new
       contracts.

As the Agency completes the final implementation stage of EPA's Acquisition System (EAS),
additional resources  for this  new system will provide the Agency with a better and more
comprehensive way to manage data on  contracts  that support mission oriented planning  and
evaluation.  This will allow the Agency  to meet E-Government (E-Gov)  requirements and the
needs of Acquisition Management personnel resulting in more efficient process implementation.

In addition, EPA will reinforce its contract oversight responsibilities through A-123 Entity Level
Assessments, increased targeted oversight training for acquisition management personnel,  and
Simplified Acquisition Contracting Officer  (SACO) reviews. These measures will  further
strengthen EPA's acquisition management business processes and enhance contract oversight.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(009) Increase in
number and percentage
of certified acquisition
staff (1102)

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target




FY 2012
Target

335,80


Units

Number,
Percent

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$1,505.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•   (-$124.0 /  -1.0 FTE)  This  change reflects realignment from the Acquisition Management
    Program to the Facilities Infrastructure and  Operations Program to consolidate property
    management services into  a single  function under the Office of Administration, which
    manages the Agency's facilities. This includes a reduction of $124.0 in associated payroll.

•   (+$248.0 /  +2.0 FTE)  This reflects an increase to supplement existing acquisition staff in an
    effort to enhance acquisition workforce effectiveness. This includes  2.0 FTE, and $248.0 in
    associated payroll.

•   (-7.4 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.

•   (+$952.0)  This change  reflects  a  revised estimate on  the implementation  of EPA's
    Acquisition System to  expand access to the  system  which will  improve the  capacity,
    capability,  and effectiveness of the acquisition workforce.

•   (-$557.0) This  reduction  reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as
    email  optimization, consolidated IT procurement,  helpdesk standardization,  and others
    totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in  individual areas may be offset by increased
    mandatory  costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.
                                          512

-------
•   (-$18.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint
    by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•   (-$316.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
    initiative targets certain categories of  spending for efficiencies  and reductions, including
    advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and  supplies.   EPA will  continue  its
    work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
    areas to achieve these savings.

•   (+$25.0) This  reflects  an  increase in  E-Gov  service  fees  for  Integrated  Acquisition
    Environment (IAE).

Statutory Authority:

EPA's  Environmental  Statutes;  annual  Appropriations Acts;  FAR.  Office  of  Federal
Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
                                           513

-------
                                         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 2010
Enacted
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$28,432.0
177.5
FY 2010
Actuals
$24,311.6
$3,240.9
$27,552.5
182.1
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$28,432.0
177.5
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$26,223.0
$3,243.0
$29,466.0
174.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$736.0
$298.0
$1,034.0
-3.0
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 (IA), and to suspension and debarment at Headquarters and
within Regional offices.   The key  components  of this program are  ensuring that EPA's
management of grants and lAs meet 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, local and tribal governments to support the implementation of environmental programs.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will achieve key objectives under its FY 2009-2013 Grants Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability, ensuring competition, achieving positive
and  measurable environmental outcomes,  and implementing a  comprehensive  post-award
monitoring program.80  The Grants Management  Plan  provides 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 Agencywide training
program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers.
 1 US EPA,EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-K-08-001, October 2008, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/fmalreport.pdf.
                                          514

-------
Also, to continue strengthening grants management, EPA, working with the states, has issued a
new policy that replaces the State Grant Performance Measures Template. The policy is intended
to 1) enhance accountability for achieving grant performance objectives; 2) ensure that State
grants are aligned  with the Agency's Strategic  Plan; and 3) provide  for more consistent
performance reporting.  To  achieve those objectives, the policy requires that state categorical
grant workplans and associated progress reports prominently display three "Essential Elements:
the EPA Strategic Plan Goal; the EPA Strategic Plan Objective; and workplan commitments plus
time frame. Regions and states will begin to transition to the new policy in FY 2012 with the
goal of 100% compliance for all grants awarded on or after October 1, 2012.

EPA will  continue  to streamline Grants  Management through  the  E-Government (E-gov)
initiative Grants Management Line of Business (GM LoB).  GM LoB  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 Project.

FY 2012 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$1,042.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •  (-2.3 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •  (-$96.0)  This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as
       email  optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

   •  (-$116.0) This  reflects a reduction  as part of the  Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for  efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing  and supplies.   EPA will
       continue its work to  redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •  (-$59.0)  This decrease  in travel costs reflects  an effort  to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •  (-$59.0)  This reflects a decrease in E-Gov service fees for Grants.gov.

   •  (+$81.0) This reflects an increase  in E-Gov  service fees for Integrated  Acquisition
       Environment (IAE) Loans and Grants.
                                           515

-------
   •   (+$1.0) This reflects an increase in E-Gov service fees for Grants Management Line of
       Business.

   •   (-$58.0)  This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or grant
       management services.

Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; Federal  Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act; Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations; Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts
30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
                                          516

-------
                                                         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
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$42,447.0
$5,580.0
$48,027.0
303.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$43,526.7
$4,332.7
$47,859.4
274.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$42,447.0
$5,580.0
$48,027.0
303.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$44,680.0
$7,046.0
$51,726.0
296.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,233.0
$1,466.0
$3,699.0
-7.0
Program Project Description:

Environmental Programs & Management (EPM) resources support activities that influence the
broad spectrum  of human capital and human resources management services throughout the
Agency.  As requirements and initiatives change, the Agency continually evaluates and improves
human resource  functions  in outreach,  recruitment,  hiring,  developing and nourishing  the
workforce to increase management and employee satisfaction, and to help the Agency achieve
its mission.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will focus on implementing the Administration's comprehensive hiring
reform in the Federal government.  On May  11, 2010 the President signed the memorandum,
Improving the Federal Recruitment  and Hiring Process81, which directed agencies  to adopt
simpler and more applicant-friendly hiring practices that improve the quality and timeliness of
the hiring process, and that are consistent with merit system principles.  Executive departments
and agencies are required to "overhaul the way they recruit and hire our civilian workforce." In
addition, managers and supervisors must assume leadership roles in  recruiting and  selecting
highly-qualified employees  from all  segments of society and will be held accountable  for these
responsibilities.  The key facets of hiring reform are: to ease the hiring process while raising the
bar on candidate quality; to  increase  engagement of agency  leaders in the recruitment and
selection process and to monitor agency efforts to increase the speed and quality of hiring.  The
six major initiatives include:

    1. Eliminating any requirement  that applicants respond to essay-style questions when first
      applying for federal employment.
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-improving-federal-recruitment-and-hiring-process
                                          517

-------
   2.  Allowing individuals to apply using resumes and cover letters.

   3.  Exercising discretion to use "Category  Rating."  which can  increase the number of
       candidates for interviews.

   4.  Making sure that managers and supervisors with responsibility for hiring are more fully
       involved in  the process and are held accountable through the performance management
       process.

   5.  Working with Office  of Personnel  Management  (OPM) and the HR community to
       improve the quality and speed of the agency process.

   6.  Notifying individuals applying for federal employment through USAJOBS about the
       status of their application at key stages in the application process.  EPA fully integrated
       this update feature in February of this year. We will monitor applicant satisfaction of this
       feature through the applicant satisfaction  survey data supplied by OPM and make future
       changes as deemed appropriate.

These  initiatives will be addressed mainly through further standardizing processes (such as
standardized position descriptions), and developing guides and processes that address each major
initiative.  Hiring Reform is a broad, Agency-wide human capital responsibility that requires
participation from  a cross-section of managers, program  officials, and the human resources
community.

EPA will  continue  to improve the effectiveness and  efficiency of Agency human resources
operations conducted by its three Shared Service Centers (SSCs).  These three SSCs handle all
human resources transactional functions for  EPA's 17,000 plus employees. The SSCs continue
to track timeliness and monitor the quality of customer service, through formal and informal
processes.

In 2012, EPA will solicit employee feedback on what the Agency may do to improve the quality
of work life. In addition, the Agency will launch a Quality of Work Life intranet site that will
announce  new plans and activities, and publicize programs that help  employees develop their
careers, enjoy their work environment, balance work and personal demands,  and lead healthier
lives.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue employee outreach efforts  and  soliciting employee
feedback in the Agency's effort to improve the quality of work life.

In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the E-
Government initiative and the Human Resources  Line of Business (HR LoB) program. HR LoB
offers  government-wide, cost effective,  and standardized HR solutions while providing core
functionality to support the strategic management of human capital.   In FY 2012, EPA  will
support the  transition  to a  new HR  system  which  will establish  modern, cost-effective,
standardized, interoperable HR solutions that  provide common  core functionality and supports
the strategic management of human capital.
                                          518

-------
Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(007) Percent of GS
employees (DEU)
hired within 80
calendar days.

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target

15


FY 2012
Target

20


Units

Percent


Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(008) Percent of GS
employees (Other than
DEU) hired within 80
calendar days

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target

23


FY 2012
Target

25


Units

Percent

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$4,739.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (+$348.0) This reflects an increase for workers compensation unemployment cost.

   •   (+$205.0) This change increases resources for EPA's Sign Language program.

   •   (-$100.0) This reflects a decrease in resources for EPA's Childcare Subsidy to  reflect
       expected demand.

   •   (-$838.07-5.4  FTE)  This  decrease  in  funding  for the Environmental Careers  Intern
       Program reflects a change in the recruitment cycle for an intern  class from every six
       months to every nine months.  This  change includes -5.4 FTE, and  -$713.0 in associated
       payroll.

   •   (-$901.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an  effort to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and  conferencing.

   •   (-$375.0) This reflects a decrease in funding for the Agency's Honor Awards ceremony
       and the SES National Conference.   Savings will occur due  to the  Honor Awards
       ceremony being held regionally  and the SES National Conference being held  every 18
       months.

   •   (-$174.0) This reduction reflects  efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects  such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million agency-wide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.
                                          519

-------
    •   (-$138.0)  This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain  categories of spending for  efficiencies  and reductions,
       including  advisory  contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities  in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$548.0) This reflects a decrease in funding for contractor support for human resources
       management transactional work resulting from efficiencies created from the HR Shared
       Service Centers.

    •   (+$15.0) This reflects an increase in E-Gov service fees for the Enterprise Human
       Resources Initiative (EHRI).

Statutory Authority:

Title V United States Code.
                                            520

-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
               521

-------
                                                                    Endocrine Disruptors
                                          Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$8, 625.0
$8,625.0
11.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$8,513.2
$8,513.2
15.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$8, 625.0
$8,625.0
11.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$8,268.0
$8,268.0
11.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($357.0)
($357.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) was established under authorities contained
in the Food Quality Protection  Act (FQPA) and  Safe  Drinking Water Act (SOWA).82  The
program consists of several ongoing activities that support a two-tiered approach.  In Tier 1,
chemicals are screened for their potential to interact with endocrine  systems (specifically the
estrogen, androgen and thyroid systems). Those  chemicals identified as having the potential to
interact with endocrine systems will be further evaluated in Tier 2 to generate effects information
that  can be  used in  risk assessment.   Current  activities within the  EDSP  include  assay
development and validation, priority setting for screening, establishing policies and procedures,
and  data  evaluation.   Assay development and validation provides validated  scientific test
methods used to screen pesticides and other chemicals  to determine their  potential to interact
with the endocrine systems (Tier 1) and, ultimately, to characterize their effects (Tier 2).  Priority
setting establishes the lists of chemicals that undergo screening in the EDSP. The policies and
procedures provide a regulatory framework that requires the generation and submission of EDSP
data.  Finally, data evaluation consists of analyzing all relevant data to determine whether the
evidence suggests the substance has the potential  to interact with endocrine systems (Tier 1) and,
therefore, should be  further tested for effects (Tier 2).  This process is known as a Weight of
Evidence (WoE) evaluation and  is described more  fully in a draft document released for public
comment on November 4, 2010 titled Weight Of Evidence Guidance: Evaluating Results Of
Edsp Tier  1 Screening To  Identify Candidate  Chemicals For Tier 2  Testing (available at
http ://www. epa.gov/endo/).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

During FY 2012, the  Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP)  will  fulfill several
milestones including:

       •  Finalizing the inter-laboratory validation of four Tier 2 assays and 2 potential Tier 1
          assays;
 • http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/sdwa/
                                           522

-------
       •  Prioritizing and selecting additional chemicals for Tier 1  screening using a process
          informed to the extent practicable by high throughput approaches such as ToxCast;
          Issuing  Tier 1 Test Orders  for the selected chemicals  based  on  publicly-vetted
          policies and procedures;

       •  Evaluating results of Tier  1  screening data submitted for 67 pesticide chemicals,
          including  comparisons with high throughput approaches  such  as ToxCast, where
          possible;

       •  Completing WoE evaluations to  determine  which  pesticide chemicals have  the
          potential to interact with endocrine systems (Tier 1) and, therefore, should be further
          tested for effects (Tier 2); and

       •  Continue  coordination  and  collaboration  with the  Research  and Development
          Program to determine the applicability of ToxCast and Tox21 assays as a replacement
          for Tier 1  assays to assess chemicals potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen,
          and thyroid systems, including consideration as appropriate  of  other scientifically
          relevant information in the existing Tier 1 battery.

In FY 2012, the EDSP will continue its work to protect communities from harm from substances
in the environment that may  adversely  affect health through specific endocrine effects.  Of note,
in FY 2012, the EDSP will continue reviewing data received in  response to the first set of test
orders issued for the Tier 1 screening of 67 pesticide chemicals. Other activities  expected in  FY
2012 include the continuation of EDSP work with EPA's Research and Development Program
on high throughput approaches to support priority-setting, and to continue building confidence in
high throughput approaches so they can be increasingly utilized in the EDSP in the near future.

EDSP also will continue to collaborate with international partners, through the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), to maximize the efficiency of EPA resource
use and promote adoption of internationally harmonized  test methods for identifying endocrine
disrupting chemicals. EPA represents the U.S. as either the lead or a participant in OECD
projects involving  the  development of computer-based and in vitro,  non-animal prioritization
methods, improvement of EDSP Tier 1 screening assays, and validation of Tier 2 assays. EPA's
EDSP also will continue to explore assays for hormone systems other than estrogen (E) androgen
(A) and thyroid  (T)  (e.g., those involved in metabolism and weight  regulation) and will also
explore non-traditional modes of action for E A and T disruption .

For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/endo/.
                                          523

-------
Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(E01) Number of
chemicals for which
Endocrine Disrupter
Screening Program
(EDSP) decisions have
been completed

FY 2010
Target






FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target


3



FY 2012
Target


5



Units


Chemicals


Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(E02) Number of
chemicals for which
EDSP Tier 1 test
orders have been
issued
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target
40
FY 2012
Target
40
Units
Chemicals
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(EOS) Number of
screening and testing
assays for which
validation decisions
have been reached
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target
2
FY 2012
Target
4
Units
Assays
In FY 2012, the EDSP will have 3 performance measures:

Number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have
been completed

Several factors will impact the schedule for completing EDSP decisions  including, for example,
the  number of pesticide  cancellations and other actions that  will remove a chemical from
commerce and/or discontinue manufacture  and import, the number of pesticide cancellations
involving  minor  agricultural uses, the number of pre-enforcement challenges to test orders,
unforeseen laboratory capacity limits, and unforeseen technical problems with completing the
Tier 1  assays for a particular chemical.  For  FY 2012, EPA has set a target of completing 5
EDSP decisions.

Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued

The annual performance targets for the number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders
are  issued are subject to obtaining  an approved  Information Collection Request and  the
                                         524

-------
availability of resources for issuing EDSP Tier 1 test orders. For FY 2012, EPA has set a target
of 40 chemicals^or which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued.

Number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have been reached

There are several  steps within the assay validation process including:  preparation of detailed
review papers, performance of prevalidation studies,  validation by multiple labs,  and peer
reviews.  A decision to discontinue validation efforts for a particular assay  could occur during
any of these steps while a decision to accept an assay as validated occurs only after all the steps
are successfully completed. For FY 2012, EPA has set a target of making 4 validation decisions.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$53.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •  (-$300.0) This  reflects  a reduction as part  of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative  targets  certain categories  of spending for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel,  general  services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and  streamline  activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •  (-$20.0) This reduction is the result of a net change to infrastructure expenses.

   •  (-$40.0) This  decrease reflects  a  redirection   of resources to  Human  Health and
       Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data
       for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

   •  (-$50.0) This decrease  in travel  costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 346a (p); Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA) 42 U.S.C. 300J-17.
                                           525

-------
                                     Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
                                                         Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                              Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                       Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$62,944.0
$3,750.0
$66,694.0
467.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$62,696.4
$4,146.4
$66,842.8
470.1
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$62,944.0
$3,750.0
$66,694.0
467.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$58,304.0
$3,839.0
$62,143.0
447.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($4,640.0)
$89.0
($4,551.0)
-20.4
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." FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment"
as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment."83

EPA's Pesticides Program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that
pesticides already in commerce are safe when used  in accordance with the label.  As directed by
FIFRA, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) 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 comply with statutory mandates, EPA
must  conduct risk assessments  using the latest scientific methods to determine the risks that
pesticides pose to human health, as well as plants, animals, and ecosystems which are not the
targets of the pesticide.  The risk assessments are peer reviewed and regulatory decisions are
posted for review and comment to ensure that these actions are transparent and that stakeholders,
including at-risk populations, are engaged in decisions affecting their health and  environment.84
As part  of the  regulatory process, the Agency must establish  tolerances  for  the maximum
allowable pesticide residues on food and feed.   In  setting these food tolerances, EPA must
balance the risks and benefits of using the pesticide, consider cumulative and aggregate risks,
and ensure the protection of vulnerable, at risk populations including children and  tribes.

EPA began promoting reduced risk pesticides in 1993  by giving registration priority to pesticides
that have lower toxicity to humans and non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and plants; low
83 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm.
84 The public can see what dockets are currently opened and provide comments at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/.
                                            526

-------
potential for contaminating  groundwater; lower use rates; low pest resistance potential; and
                                                	    o c
compatibility with Integrated Pest Management (IPM).    Several  countries and international
organizations also have instituted programs to facilitate registering reduced risk pesticides.  EPA
works with the  international  scientific community  and  the  Organization for  Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) member  countries to register new reduced-risk pesticides
and establish related tolerances (maximum residue limits).  Through these efforts, EPA can help
reduce risks to Americans from foods imported from other countries.

The  Agency's  regional  offices provide frontline risk management that  ensures the decisions
made during EPA's registration and reevaluation processes are implemented in pesticide use.
For example, millions of America's workers are exposed  to pesticides in occupations such as
lawn  care,  health  care, food  preparation, and  landscape maintenance.   Each year, the risk
assessments that EPA conducts yield extensive  risk-management requirements for hundreds of
pesticides and  uses.   EPA  works 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will 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  timeframes.  To further advance EPA's cross cutting  strategy of
working for environmental justice and  children's health,  EPA will process these  registration
requests with  special  consideration given to  susceptible populations,  especially children.
Specifically, EPA  will  focus  on the foods commonly eaten by children in order to  reduce
pesticide  exposure  to  children where  the  science identifies  potential concerns.  Pesticide
registration  actions focus on the evaluation of pesticide  products before they enter the market.86
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.

During FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement registration review of existing pesticides and
develop work plans for pesticides entering  the  review pipeline.  The goal of the  registration
review process is  to review  pesticide registrations every fifteen years to ensure that pesticides
already in the  marketplace  meet the most  current  scientific standards and address concerns
                                        Q"J   	
identified after the original registration.    The Agency will   strive to  meet the  program's
deadlines  within resources.  Implementation of  the program, as mandated by statute, supports
EPA's priorities including assuring the safety of chemicals and protecting America's waters.
85 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk Internet site:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/reducing.htm.
86 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets, Pesticide Registration Program
Internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/registration.htm.
87 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Internet site:
www. epa. gov/pesticides/registration review.
                                            527

-------
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs) reflect necessary changes brought to light during the
registration review process. As part of RED implementation, EPA will continue to  address
activities vital to  effective  "real world"  risk reduction.   These activities include reviewing
product label amendments that  incorporate the mitigation measures from  the REDs; publishing
proposed and final product  cancellations;  promoting partnerships which  provide  fast/effective
risk reduction; and approving product reregistrations.  On a priority basis, the Agency also will
complete  certain proposed  and  final  tolerance  rulemakings to implement  the changes  in
tolerances and tolerance 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 available and safe when used in accordance with the label.

In FY 2012, the Agency is reducing both intramural  and extramural resources from this program
as a result of increased program efficiencies and reprioritization  of activities.  Reductions may
impact the timing of development and implementation of new risk assessment and policies
designed to enhance protection for children and agricultural workers and drinking water policies.
Rulemaking in areas such as new information requirements,  and product performance  will be
extended from 2011 - 2013  to 2012 - 2015.  Additionally, there will be delays in the activities
outlined in Section 25(b) of FIFRA, such as publication in the Federal Register of the Secretary
of Agriculture comments on the proposed regulation; EPA's response to USDA comments; and
final publication of the impact analysis.

EPA will continue to provide locally-based technical assistance and guidance by partnering with
states and tribes on implementation of pesticide decisions.  The Agency will address issues
including 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.

In keeping with EPA's priority  of expanding the conversation on the environment, the Agency
will continue to engage the public, the scientific community, and other stakeholders in its policy
development and implementation.  This will encourage a reasonable  transition for farmers and
others from the older, potentially more hazardous pesticides,  to the newer pesticides that have
been registered using the latest available scientific  information.  The Agency will continue  to
review and update, as appropriate, the  pesticide  review and use  policies  to ensure compliance
with the latest scientific methods keeping true to its  commitment  of advancing science, research
and technological innovation. EPA will continue to emphasize the registration of reduced risk
pesticides, including biopesticides, in order to provide farmers and other pesticide users with
new alternatives. In FY 2012, the Agency,  in collaboration with the United States Department of
Agriculture  (USDA), will  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.

The  Agency will  engage  states,  tribes,  and the  private sector to ensure improvement  in
compliance with its decisions with an  increase in resources to support additional focus in the
                                           528

-------
implementation and enforcement of pesticides specific rules and decisions made.  Additionally,
EPA will initiate efforts towards establishing a self-monitoring and/or self-certification process
and self-reporting requirements for components of its regulatory programs.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(091) Percent of
decisions completed on
time (on or before
PPJA or negotiated due
date).
FY 2010
Target
99
FY 2010
Actual
99.7
FY2011
CR
Target
99
FY 2012
Target
99
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(143) Percentage of
agricultural acres
treated with reduced-
risk pesticides.
FY 2010
Target
21
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2012
FY2011
CR
Target
21
FY 2012
Target
22
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(012) Percent reduction
of children's exposure
to rodenticides.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target
10
FY 2012
Target
5
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(266) Reduction in
concentration of
targeted pesticide
analytes in the general
population.
FY 2010
Target
50,50
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2012
Target
50,50
Units
Percent
Measure
Type



Outcome


Measure
(Jll) Reduction in
moderate to severe
exposure incidents
associated with
organophosphate and
carbamate insecticides
FY 2010
Target






FY 2010
Actual






FY2011
CR
Target






FY 2012
Target



10


Units



Percent


                                           529

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
in the general
population.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(J15) Reduction in
concentration of
targeted pesticide
analytes in children.

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target




FY 2012
Target

50,50


Units

Percent

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 optimal 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.

In FY 2012,  EPA will continue the implementation of FIFRA, FFDCA, ESA, the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)
in fulfilling the Agency's commitments to protect human health and the environment through our
regulatory programs. In order to provide better accountability, the Agency will track these areas
through various measures including:  (1)  reduction in moderate to severe exposure incidents
associated with organophosphates  and carbamate insecticides in the general  population, (2)
reduction in  concentration of targeted  pesticide analytes  in children,  and (3)  reduction in
concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in the general population.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,361.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for  existing
       FTE.

   •   (-$47.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
   •   (-$72.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the  Computer  Security  Incident  Response  Center  from  across  programs  to  the
       Information Security program.
                                          530

-------
   •   (-$106.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$30.0)  This  decrease reflects a  redirection  of  resources to  Human  Health and
       Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data
       for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.

   •   (+$172.07+0.5 FTE) This reflects an increase for the Agency's Regaining Ground:
       Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas Investment for additional focus in the
       implementation and enforcement of pesticides specific rules and decisions made. The
       additional resources include 0.5 FTE and associated payroll of $72.0.

   •   (-$6,686.07-8.5 FTE) This reduction of resources is a result of program efficiencies and
       reprioritization.   The  reduction  may  impact  the timing  of  development  and
       implementation of new risk assessment and policies designed to enhance protection for
       children and agricultural workers and drinking water policies.  Rulemaking in areas such
       as new information requirements, and product performance will be extended from 2011 -
       2013 to 2012 - 2015.   Additionally, there will be  delays in the  activities outlined in
       Section 25(b) of FIFRA, such as publication in the  Federal Register of the Secretary of
       Agriculture comments on the proposed regulation; EPA's response to USD A comments;
       and final publication of the impact analysis.  This includes 8.5  FTE and associated
       payroll of $1,224.0.

   •   (+$399.0) This additional funding represents an adjustment to fully fund IT and WCF
       costs associated with direct FTE support.

   •   (+$369.07+2.0  FTE) This  reflects  the redirection  of pesticide program  resources  to
       support core program operations in Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
       from the Homeland Security Program.  This will affect efficacy testing of chemicals and
       pesticides for decontamination of food and agricultural  facilities  and disinfectants for
       hospital use. This increase includes 2.0 FTE and associated payroll of $311.0.

Statutory Authority:

Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as
amended, § 408 and 409.
                                          531

-------
                                   Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
                                                          Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                              Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                        Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$42,203.0
$2,279.0
$44,482.0
301.4
FY 2010
Actuals
$41,584.5
$2,285.9
$43,870.4
334.9
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$42,203.0
$2,279.0
$44,482.0
301.4
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$37,913.0
$2,448.0
$40,361.0
288.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($4,290.0)
$169.0
($4,121.0)
-13.2
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." FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment"
as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social,
and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide."88

In  complying with  FIFRA, EPA  must  conduct  risk assessments  using the latest  scientific
methods to determine the risks  that pesticides pose to human health, and ecological effects on
plants, animals, and ecosystems  that are not the targets of the pesticide.  The Agency's regulatory
decisions are posted for review and comment to ensure that these actions are transparent and that
stakeholders,  including  at risk populations,  are  engaged in decisions  which  affect  their
environment.  Under FIFRA, EPA must determine that a  pesticide will not cause unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment.  For food uses of pesticides, this standard requires EPA to
determine that food residues of the pesticide are  "safe."   For other risk concerns, EPA must
balance the risks of the pesticides with benefits provided from  the use 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.8
88 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm.
89 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm.
                                            532

-------
In addition to FIFRA responsibilities, the Agency has responsibilities under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).90 Under ESA, EPA must ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions will not
destroy or adversely modify  designated  critical habitat or result  in  likely jeopardy  to  the
continued existence of species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 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  biological attributes, habitat requirements and
geographic range, this presents a great challenge.  Where risks are identified, EPA must work
with FWS  and NMFS in a consultation process to ensure these pesticide registrations will meet
the ESA standard.  EPA has instituted processes for consideration of endangered species issues
routinely in EPA and expects  that in FY 2012 the Agency will continue to improve compliance
with ESA.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Reduced concentrations of pesticides in water sources are an indication of 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
(NWQA) program  for urban watersheds, EPA will  monitor the  impact of our  regulatory
decisions for three chemicals  of  concern—diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl.  In agricultural
watersheds, the program will monitor the impact of our regulatory decisions on azinphos-methyl
and chloropyrifos, and consider whether any additional action is necessary.91 In FY 2012, the
Agency will continue to work  with USGS to develop sampling plans and refine program goals.

To  measure  program  effectiveness,  EPA   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 USGS NWQA program.
Registration  review decisions  and  associated  Reregi strati on  Eligibility Decision   (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.  Attainment of the  goal to reduce risks would be significantly hampered without the
availability  of alternative products  to these  pesticides for  the consumer.  Consequently,  the
success of the Registration program  in ensuring lower risk  and the availability of effective
alternative products plays  a  large role in meeting the environmental outcome of improved
ecosystem  protection.  Through  various means, including workshops,  demonstrations, grants,
printed materials, and the Internet, EPA will continue  to assist pesticide users in learning about
new, safer products and methods of using existing products.
90 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/ESA35/ESA35DaleOA.html.
91Gilliom, 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 129l,p 171. Available on the Internet at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/.
                                            533

-------
In FY 2012, EPA will  continue to emphasize 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 federally listed
threatened  or endangered species and will work 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
and efficient consideration of potential risks to listed species. Additionally, during registration
review, EPA will endeavor  to obtain risk mitigation  earlier in the process by  encouraging
registrants  to agree to changes in  uses and applications of a pesticide beneficial to protecting
endangered species prior to EPA completing consultation with the Services.

In FY 2012, the Agency is reducing both intramural and extramural resources from this program
as a result  of increased  program efficiencies and reprioritization of activities. Reductions may
impact the timing of development and implementation  of new risk assessments and   policies
designed to enhance protection for children,  agricultural  workers,  and drinking  water.   The
Agency will continue to work towards our commitment in environmental justice and protection
of children's  health. The  Worker Protection rule  will be finalized in 2012, however,  the
implementation of the rule will be delayed until 2013.

The reduction alone may delay registration review milestones for preliminary risk assessments
and some regulatory decisions. Due to the lead times involved in conducting risk assessments,
impacts will begin with pesticides in the pipeline in 2011.  Rulemaking in other areas such as
new information requirements and product performance will be extended  from 2011 - 2013 to
2012-2015.

 The Agency continues to provide technical support for compliance with the requirements of the
 ESA.  In FY 2012, within available resources, EPA will continue  the integration of 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 assessment process during registration review by allowing risk assessors to
 more easily 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!92  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 ESA.  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 listed  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 2012, EPA is revising Bulletins Live! to provide a more
  http://www.epa. gov/espp/bulletins.htm
                                           534

-------
interactive and more geographically discrete platform for pesticide users to understand the use
limitations necessary to protect endangered or threatened species.
In FY 2012, pesticides beginning registration review are  expected  to require comprehensive
environmental assessments, including determining potential 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
Output
Measure
(Oil) Number of
Product Reregistration
Decisions
FY 2010
Target
1,500
FY 2010
Actual
1712
FY2011
CR
Target
1,500
FY 2012
Target
1,200
Units
Decisions
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(164) Number of
pesticide registration
review dockets opened.
FY 2010
Target
70
FY 2010
Actual
75
FY2011
CR
Target
70
FY 2012
Target
70
Units
Dockets

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(230) Number of
pesticide registration
review final work plans
completed.

FY 2010
Target

70


FY 2010
Actual

70

FY2011
CR
Target

70


FY 2012
Target

70


Units

Work Plans

Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(268) Percent of urban
watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic
life benchmarks for
three key pesticides of
concern (diazinon,
chlorpyrifos and
carbaryl).
FY 2010
Target



5, 0, 20



FY 2010
Actual



6.7, 0, 33



FY2011
CR
Target



No Target
Established



FY 2012
Target



5,0,10



Units



Percent



                                           535

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(269) Percent of
agricultural watersheds
that do not exceed EPA
aquatic life
benchmarks for two
key pesticides of
concern (azinphos-
methyl and
chlorpyrifos).
FY 2010
Target



0, 10



FY 2010
Actual



0,8



FY2011
CR
Target



No Target
Established



FY 2012
Target



10



Units



Percent



Measure
Type
Outcome



Measure
(276) Percent of
registration review
chemicals with
identified endangered
species concerns, for
which EPA obtains
any mitigation of risk
prior to consultation
with DOC and DOT.
FY 2010
Target




FY
2010
Actual




FY2011
CR
Target




FY 2012
Target
5



Units
Percent



Some of the measures for this program are program outputs, which when finalized, represent the
program's statutory requirements.  This is to ensure that pesticides entering the marketplace are
safe for human health and the  environment, and when used in accordance with the packaging
label,  ensure 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 reviews
prevent dangerous pesticides from entering the marketplace.

In FY 2012,  EPA will  continue the implementation  of FIFRA, FFDCA, ESA, the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act
(PRIRA) in the exercise of the  Agency's responsibilities for the registration and the registration
review activities.  As part of EPA's efforts to improve accountability, the Agency will track
these  areas through  three  measures.  These include:  (1)  percent of decisions completed in
accordance with the PRIA and PRIRA or mutually negotiated times; (2) number of Registration
Review  dockets opened for  each pesticide entering the review process to seek comments on the
information the Agency has on the active ingredient; and (3) number of final work plans
completed for each  active ingredient after  comments are evaluated and required  data  are
complete.

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 is currently sampling in its second cycle (Cycle II) from 2002-2012 and
                                          536

-------
is  developing sampling plans for 2013-2022.   The monitoring plan calls for biennial early
sampling in eight urban watersheds and sampling every four years in a second set of nine urban
watersheds; and yearly monitoring in eight agricultural watersheds and biennial sampling in
three agricultural dominated watersheds. The sampling frequency for these sites will range from
approximately thirteen to twenty-six samples per year depending on the size of the watershed
and the extent of the pesticide use period.  Sampling frequency is seasonally weighted so more
samples are collected when pesticide use is expected to be highest.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$386.0) This funding increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for
       existing FTE.

    •   (-$31.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel,  general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$45.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to  reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$71.0)  This   decrease  reflects  a redirection  of  resources to Human Health  and
       Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data
       for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.

    •   (+$18.0) This  reflects realignments and  corrections to resources for telephone, Local
       Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

    •   (-$4,952.07-6.0  FTE)  This reflects a reduction  of  resources resulting from program
       efficiencies and reprioritization in  policy,  rulemaking, registration review,  non-PRIA
       registration  activities,  worker  safety/certification  and   implementation  electronic
       regulatory  decisions.   These resources include  -6.0 FTE and associated payroll of -
       $843.0.

    •   (+$405.0) This reflects a realignment of regional pesticides implementation resources to
       correct regional pesticides funding allocations.

Statutory Authority:

Pesticide Registration  Improvement Renewal Act; Endangered Species Act; Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; Food  Quality Protection Act;
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
                                           537

-------
                                      Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
                                                        Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                              Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                       Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$13,145.0
$537.0
$13,682.0
89.7
FY 2010
Actuals
$13,508.9
$505.1
$14,014.0
99.9
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$13,145.0
$537.0
$13,682.0
89.7
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$12,550.0
$544.0
$13,094.0
88.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($595.0)
$7.0
($588.0)
-1.6
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."93

Through ongoing education and research in environmentally sound pest remediation methods,
the Realize the Value  of Pesticides Program ensures that  effective  and  safe pesticides are
available for regular use and for emergency situations. Examples of actions that lead to societal
benefits are exemptions granted under FIFRA Section 18.  For example,  in  the event of an
emergency such as a severe pest infestation, FIFRA  Section 18 provides EPA the authority to
temporarily exempt certain pesticide uses from registration requirements.   Under  Section 18,
EPA must ensure that, under the very limiting provisions of the exemption, such emergency uses
will  not present an unreasonable  risk to the  environment.  In such cases, EPA's goal is to
complete the more detailed and comprehensive review for potential unreasonable risk conducted
for pesticide registration within three years following the emergency.

FIFRA clearly recognizes that there will be societal benefits beyond protection of human health
and the environment from the pesticide registration process. Section 3 of FIFRA authorizes EPA
to register 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.

The  Pesticide Environmental  Stewardship Program has had much success using the Monroe
Model in schools.  The Monroe Model focuses on IPM in schools and  has  led to a substantial
93 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23,2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm
                                           538

-------
reduction in pest control costs and a 90 percent reduction in both pesticide applications and pest
problems in participating schools.94  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.95  This PESP/IPM implementation serves  as an
example of how to implement IPM in school districts across the country. The increase in funding
to EPA's IPM program in FY 2012  will  help support the schools as part  of the Promoting
Healthy  Communities initiative. This will  be accomplished through various means, including
development  and  dissemination  of brochures:  education  on potential  benefits  of  IPM
implementation, and outreach on successes of IPM to encourage its use.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA's statutory and regulatory functions for the pesticides program include registration, product
reregi strati on, registration review implementation, risk reduction implementation,  rulemaking
and program management.  During FY 2012, EPA will 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 (PRIRA) timeframes.  Many of these actions will be for reduced-risk
pesticides which, once registered and used by consumers, will increase benefits to society.
Working together with  the affected  user  communities, through PESP  and IPM  and related
activities, the Agency plans to accelerate the adoption of these lower-risk products.

In FY  2012, EPA will redirect resources from the Strategic Agricultural Initiative to Integrated
Pest Management activities to provide additional support for  advancing the  Administrator's
priorities in IPM efforts in agriculture and thus enhancing healthy environments efforts.  This
redirection resulted from the Agency's  review of non-regulatory programs.  It will provide a
more focused effort in IPM to address a wide range of agricultural risk issues in food  safety as
well as  reducing communities' exposure  to  pesticide drift.   Through  contracts,  grants and
partnerships,  EPA will  continue to support implementation  of  IPM  related activities in
agriculture.  The Agency will continue to develop tools  and informational brochures to promote
IPM efforts.  Additionally, EPA will continue to develop and provide guidance to farmers,  other
partners, and stakeholders to further the use of IPM strategies in the agricultural sector.

Similarly, the Agency will continue  its work sharing 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 provides  exemptions to growers for use  of pesticides that are not
registered for their crops during emergency situations. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to
94 Lame, M. L., 2008 "Assessment and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management Schools: Practical Implementation,"
Proceedings of the 2008 National Conference on Urban Entomology and Proceedings of the 2008 National Conference on Urban
Entomology; Lame, April 5,2008, "Measuring the Impacts of Implementing IPM programs in Schools," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture's 5th National IPM Symposium Paper Presentation, St. Louis, MO. D. H.
Gouge, M. L. Lame, and J. L. Snyder, 2006, "Use of an Implementation Model and Diffusion Process for Establishing Integrated
Pest Management in Arizona Schools," American Entomologist 52:3, referred.
95 http://www.epa. gov/pesticides/ipm/
                                            539

-------
process exemptions.   The economic benefit  of the Section 18 Program to growers is  the
avoidance of potential losses incurred in the  absence  of pesticides exempted under FIFRA's
emergency exemption provisions.

EPA will  continue to conduct pre-market evaluations of efficacy data for public health claims
and ensure that the products will work for their intended purposes.  Through the Antimicrobial
Testing Program, the Agency will  continue to conduct post-market surveillance to monitor the
efficacy of hospital disinfectants.

Additionally  in  FY 2012, the Agency  is reducing resources  from  this  program to  reflect
efficiencies in program implementation and to  reflect reprioritization of activities.  Specifically,
resources  to  support  urban pest management  activities  and  the non-regulatory Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Programs will be reduced.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(240) Maintain
timeliness of Section
18 Emergency
Exemption Decisions

FY 2010
Target

45


FY 2010
Actual

50

FY2011
CR
Target

45


FY 2012
Target

45


Units

Days

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$36.0)  This increase reflects  the recalculation of base workforce costs  for existing
        FTE.

    •   (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
        rates.

    •   (-$17.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.
        This initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
        including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
        continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
        and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$24.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort  to reduce the Agency's travel
        footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (+$1,020.07+3.0 FTE) This increase supports Integrated Pest Management in schools as
        part of the Promoting Healthy Communities initiative. This increase includes 3.0 FTE
        and $368.0 in associated payroll.
                                           540

-------
    •   (-$16.0) This  decrease  reflects  a redirection of resources to Human Health  and
        Ecosystems which funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data
        for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.

    •   (-$937.0 7-2.5 FTE) This  decrease reflects efficiencies in program implementation and a
        reprioritization of activities.  Specifically, resources for urban pest management and the
        non-regulatory Pesticide Environmental  Stewardship Program  will be  reduced. The
        reduced resources include 2.5 FTE and associated payroll of $354.0.

    •   (-$673.0) This reflects a realignment of regional pesticides implementation resources to
        correct regional pesticides funding allocations.

    •   (+$16.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone,  Local
        Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

Statutory Authority:

Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal  Act (PRIRA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,  and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),  as amended; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as
amended, § 408 and 409.
                                          541

-------
                                                         Science Policy and Biotechnology
                                                        Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,840.0
$1,840.0
6.3
FY 2010
Actuals
$1,349.5
$1,349.5
6.7
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$1,840.0
$1,840.0
6.3
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$1,756.0
$1,756.0
6.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($84.0)
($84.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Science Policy  and Biotechnology Program provides  scientific and policy expertise,
coordinates EPA intra-agency, interagency, and international efforts, and facilitates information
sharing 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. The
Biotechnology Team assists in formulating EPA and United States' positions on biotechnology
issues, including representation on  United States delegations  to international meetings.  Such
international activity is coordinated with the Department of State. In addition, the Science Policy
and Biotechnology program provides for independent, external  scientific peer review through the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP), a
federal advisory committee.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA will continue to play a lead role in evaluating the scientific and technical issues associated
with plant-incorporated protectants including those based on plant viral coat proteins. EPA also
will, in conjunction with an interagency workgroup, continue to maintain and further develop the
U.S. Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Web Site.  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."
96
In addition, a number of biotechnology 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.
 ' http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
                                           542

-------
The FIFRA 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.  Scientific peer review is a critical component of EPA's use of the
best available science.

The FIFRA SAP typically conducts eight to 10 reviews each  year on  a variety of scientific
topics.  Specific topics to be placed on the 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.  Notice  of the FIFRA SAP
meetings are published in the Federal Register.  In FY 2012, topics may include issues related to
chemical-specific risk assessments and endocrine disrupters, among others.

Performance Targets:

Currently there are no performance measures specific to this program.  Work under this program
supports the  Chemical  and Pesticide Risks  objective.   Supported programs include the
registration of new pesticides and review of existing pesticides.  The work in the  Science Policy
and Biotechnology  Program also  supports  efforts related to toxic substances, specifically, the
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program.  In addition, science policy and biotechnology
activities assist in  meeting targets  for measures  under other programs such  as Endocrine
Disruptors Screening Program through, for example, the conduct of the FIFRA SAP meetings.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars  in Thousands):

    •   (-$57.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$7.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,  including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign  processes  and  streamline activities in both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$20.0) This decrease in  travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel  and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide and Rodenticide Act  (FIFRA) 7 U.S.C.
136(a),136(c),136(e),136(f),136(g),136(j),136(o),136w(a)(b)(d)(e); Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) 15 U.S.C. 2604h (5) (A), 2607b; Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA)
21 U.S.C. 346a, 371; Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5a U.S.C. 9,10,11,12 & 14
                                           543

-------
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                           544

-------
                                                            RCRA: Waste Management
                            Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                              Objective(s): Preserve Land

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
397.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$71,171.2
$71,171.2
382.5
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
397.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$66,854.0
$66,854.0
372.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($1,988.0)
($1,988.0)
-24.1
Program Project Description:

The  Waste  Management  program's primary  focus  is  to  provide  national policy direction
concerning the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA) in order to reduce the amount
of waste generated; to improve the recovery and conservation of materials by focusing on a
hierarchy of waste management options that advocate reduction, reuse,  and recycling; and to
ensure that wastes which cannot be safely reused or recycled are treated  and disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner.  This program 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  new challenges, such as
assessing waste streams from new industrial processes and learning from technological advances
in the  waste management arena.  There is a continued  focus on safe disposal  practices, the
conservation of  resources,  and regulatory  and other  reform  efforts  to strengthen  waste
management and improve the efficiency of the program. EPA actively participates in waste
management and resource conservation efforts internationally.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide assistance to states with establishing permits, permit
renewals, or other approved controls at facilities that treat, store, or dispose  of hazardous waste.
However, due to resource reductions, EPA training, contract support, and worksharing to assist
states in RCRA permitting will be impacted.   Within the constrained fiscal environment for EPA
and states, EPA will continue to work with states on meeting the annual target of implementing
permits,  initial  approved controls,  and  updated  controls at  100  RCRA hazardous  waste
management facilities.97 In addition,  the  program  remains responsible  for  the  continued
 ' In addition, EPA will directly implement the RCRA base program in the states of Iowa and Alaska.
                                          545

-------
maintenance of the regulatory controls at 2,467 facilities, including about 10,000 process units
                                                                      QO
(such as incinerators, landfills and storage tanks), in the permitting baseline.

An important objective in FY 2012 is to ensure that owners and operators of hazardous waste
facilities and reclamation  facilities  operating under the definition of solid waste exclusion
provide proof of their ability to pay for the  cleanup, closure,  and post-closure care of their
facilities.

The Agency is using its RCRA financial  assurance  and regulatory development expertise to
develop proposed  regulations under  CERCLA Section 108(b).  These regulations will impose
financial responsibility requirements on the highest-risk classes of facilities managing hazardous
substances.  In FY 2012, the Agency will propose regulations for the top priority classes of
facilities from the hardrock mining  and mineral processing, and make significant progress
toward a  final  rule.  For the classes of facilities  in the chemical  manufacturing, petroleum
refining,  and electric power generation industries, EPA will develop an Information Collection
Request (ICR) and receive information to support a regulatory proposal.

The Agency will continue its high priority work on encouraging  proper management of coal
combustion residuals.  EPA will continue to work with interested parties in helping to promote
the use of the voluntary "Guide for Industrial Waste Management,"99 which provides  facility
managers, state and tribal regulators,  and the public with recommendations and tools to better
address the management of land-disposed non-hazardous industrial waste.

The Agency will continue its efforts in FY 2012 to assist in ensuring safe combustion of both
hazardous  and  solid waste.  EPA will meet its court-ordered December  2012  deadline for
finalizing revisions to the definition of solid waste.  This regulation will promote the recycling of
hazardous secondary materials, where it can be done safely.   Increased environmentally sound
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
extraction.

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 in FY 2012. EPA will
work to  maintain  information on technologies and tools for use  in decontamination/disposal
operations related to terrorist events, natural disasters, or other disease outbreaks.

In FY 2012, the  Agency will  continue to  issue  Polychlorinated  Biphenyl  (PCB) disposal
approvals and implement the PCB disposal and cleanup program. EPA will work with the U.S.
Navy to  address the reefing of ships and will  work with  the  U.S.  Maritime Administration
(MARAD) as it safely  dismantles its fleet of obsolete ships that contain equipment using PCBs,
asbestos, and other materials.
98 http://www.epa. gov/wastes/hazard/tsd/permit/pgprarpt.htm
99 http://www.epa. gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.htm
                                           546

-------
EPA will continue to provide limited technical assistance to tribes and tribal organizations for the
purpose of addressing solid and hazardous waste problems and reducing the risk of exposure to
improper disposal of solid and hazardous waste.  Of the 574 federally recognized tribes, 117
have met EPA's internal criteria for having an integrated waste management plan as of FY 2010.

During FY 2012, the Agency requests $2 million to begin the development of an electronic
hazardous waste manifest system.  This funding supports the Administration's goal of reducing
the burden on regulated entities where feasible.  Once fully implemented, e-manifest will reduce
the reporting burden for firms regulated under RCRA's hazardous waste provisions  by $200
million to $400 million annually.  The system  will also make information on hazardous waste
movements more readily  accessible to EPA,  States, and  the public,  thus supporting  the
administration's goals  of transparency and efficiency.  The Agency will submit to  Congress a
legislative proposal to collect user fees to support the development and operation of the system.
In addition, in FY 2012,  EPA will finalize the rule that will allow tracking of hazardous waste
using the electronic  manifest  system.   In  order to provide information system support on e-
manifest, EPA is re-prioritizing RCRAInfo planned improvements, including work to assure data
quality100 and efforts to develop a user-friendly, web-based, searchable data system to provide
the public with access to, and  ability to sort, data on  hazardous waste generation, management,
and shipment.

In FY 2012,  as a result of funding constraints, EPA will not offer Tribal  grants for integrated
solid waste management  planning. Additionally, the Agency's schedules for some rulemakings
will slow down due to the reduction of contractor  resources.  EPA will rely more on  in-house
staff to complete necessary work.  Schedules are predicted to slip 6-12 months for proposed rules
and 6-12  months for final  rules. Furthermore, EPA will  delay analytical methods work for
quantification of hazardous constituents until future fiscal years.

In addition, EPA is requesting $340.0 and 1.0 FTE  as part of the Agency's  Regaining Ground in
Compliance initiative to support a change in approach to enforcement.  As inspections alone will
not solve  issues of facility non-compliance,  the Agency will examine existing regulatory
frameworks to identify additional ways to reduce the associated risks of non-compliance.  This
investment will help identify rules  early in the development process to ensure that electronic
reporting  and  advanced  monitoring  requirements are incorporated as  necessary to  ensure
compliance.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(HWO) Number of
hazardous waste
facilities with new or
updated controls.

FY 2010
Target

100


FY 2010
Actual

140

FY2011
CR
Target

100


FY 2012
Target

100


Units

Facilities

100 EPA is developing plans to address data quality issues identified by EPA's Office of Inspector General in a Feb. 2011 report:
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110207-1 l-P-0096.pdf
                                           547

-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
(HWE) Number of
facilities with new or
updated controls per
million dollars of
program cost.
FY 2010
Target
3.72
FY 2010
Actual
3.91
FY2011
CR
Target
3.75
FY 2012
Target
3.79
Units
Facilities
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1,094.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$2,744.0 / -19.6 FTE)  This reduction, including payroll of $2,744.0 associated with
       19.6 FTE, reflects a decrease in resources  available to support existing efforts aimed at
       promoting the reduction, reuse, and recycling of municipal solid waste and industrial
       materials.  Specifically  this reduction  decreases support provided to the WasteWise,
       Green Highways, and Pay As You Throw programs. The reduced resources include 19.6
       FTE and associated payroll of $2,744.0.

    •   (-5.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   ($-2,000.0) As a result of new priorities and funding constraints, in FY 2012 EPA will
       not offer Tribal grants  for integrated solid waste  management planning and will delay
       work on analytical methods for quantification of hazardous constituents.  Additionally,
       the Agency's schedules for rulemaking activities will be extended as EPA relies more on
       in-house staff than on contractors to complete necessary work.

    •   (+2,000.0)  This increase supports the Administration's goal of reducing unnecessary
       burdens on businesses by funding the  development of a  hazardous waste electronic
       manifest system. The President's Budget includes a legislative proposal for Congress to
       provide authority to collect fees to support  development and operation of the system,
       consistent with past direction from Congress.

    •   (+$340.0 / +1.0 FTE)   This increase will support the Agency's Regaining Ground in
       Compliance initiative to identify rules early  in the development process.  This funding
       also  will  be used to  ensure that   electronic reporting  and  advanced  monitoring
       requirements  are  incorporated as necessary  to  ensure  compliance.  The  additional
       resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $140.0.

    •   (+$1.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a net change  between pay and nonpay resources as a
       result reducing $148.0 in contract costs  to fund $144.0 for associated payroll and $5.0
       related support costs  for  an additional 1.0 FTE redirected from BRAC program  to the
                                           548

-------
       Waste Management program.  The  additional FTE will provide regulatory preparation
       and support in the Waste Management program.

    •   (-$210.0 / -1.5 FTE)  This change reflects the associated payroll with 1.5 Regional FTE
       redirected from the RCRA Waste Management program to RCRA Corrective Action
       program to address PCB Clean Up and Disposal.

    •   (-$255.0) This reflects a reduction  as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets  certain categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$129.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$75.0) This reflects a redirection of resources to the Human Health  and Ecosystems
       program that  funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for
       aquatic life, terrestrial  plants, and wildlife. Various programs have contributed to this
       database in the past.

    •   (-$10.0) This  reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the  Computer  Security Incident  Response Center  from  across  programs  to  the
       Information Security program.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,  42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Sections 3004, 3005, 8001 and the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C.
2605 et seq. - Section 6.
                                           549

-------
                                                                RCRA: Corrective Action
                             Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                                 Objective(s): Restore Land

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$40,029.0
$40,029.0
246.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$39,366.0
$39,366.0
228.5
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$40,029.0
$40,029.0
246.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$40,266.0
$40,266.0
246.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$237.0
$237.0
-0.5
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.
The Corrective Action program is largely implemented by  authorized states, with leadership,
support, and some direct implementation, by EPA and is designed to direct owners and operators
to clean up  environmental contamination at RCRA hazardous waste treatment,  storage and
disposal facilities. Although the states101 are the primary implementers of the Corrective Action
Program, EPA  directly implements corrective action in 13 states,  and is the lead regulator at a
significant  number  of facilities  undergoing corrective  actions in authorized states across the
country.  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.102

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency  will continue to  work  in partnership with the states to coordinate
cleanup  program goals  and  direction.  EPA  and  the states  will  continue to develop and
implement  approaches for  constructing final remedies at operating facilities that are protective,
as long as the facility remains active.  This will ensure protective controls are in place if the use
changes in the future. In FY 2012,  the RCRA Corrective Action Program will focus on site
investigation, identification of interim remedies to eliminate exposures to human health or the
environment, and selection of safe, effective long-term remedies.
101 This includes both those states authorized for corrective action and those not authorized for corrective action but contribute
through work sharing agreements with their EPA Regional Offices.
102 For more information please refer to http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/.
                                           550

-------
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 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 addition, EPA will ensure that polychlorinated biphenyl  (PCB) waste and PCB remediation
sites are cleaned up.   Specific activities include advising  the  regulated community on  PCB
remediation and reviewing and acting on disposal applications for PCB remediation waste.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work toward the calendar  year 2020 goal of constructing final
remedies at 95 percent of all facilities. As part of overall efforts toward that goal, EPA and states
are working toward controlling human exposures to toxins  at a minimum of 95 percent of
facilities and controlling 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 baseline that EPA finalized in May 2007 and began implementing in FY 2008, which
includes 3,746 facilities requiring corrective action.  In FY  2009, the annual targets for RCRA
Corrective Action were revised to align with  this newly assessed baseline.  In FY 2012, the
Agency will  be  working  with  states to  continue developing  and implementing  program
improvements in  order to meet the ambitious 2020 goal, and implementing program reforms
under the Agency's Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI).

In an effort to  improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated the multi-year ICI in FY 2010 to better utilize EPA's assessment and
cleanup authorities and resources, in  an integrated and transparent fashion, to address a greater
number of contaminated sites,  accelerate cleanups, and put those sites  back  into productive use
while protecting human health and the environment.  By utilizing the relevant tools available in
each of the cleanup  programs,  including RCRA Corrective Action, EPA will better leverage the
resources available to address needs at individual sites.

EPA has developed  an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI
and to  identify  ongoing or new actions the Agency will  advance with our  partners during the
upcoming years.  Collectively, the actions establish  a framework of activities, milestone dates,
and deliverables that will effectively  address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate
cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase information transparency across all of EPA's cleanup
programs.

In addition, the  Agency is using its RCRA cleanup program and  regulatory development
expertise to develop proposed regulations under CERCLA  Section  108(b).   These regulations
will  impose  financial responsibility requirements  on  the highest-risk classes  of facilities
managing hazardous substances.  In FY 2012, the Agency will propose regulations for the top
priority classes  of facilities from the hardrock mining and mineral processing industries, and
make significant  progress toward a  final  rule.  For the classes of facilities in the  chemical
manufacturing,  petroleum refining, and electric power generation industries, EPA will develop
an Information Collection Request  (ICR)  and  receive  information  to  support  a regulatory
proposal.
                                          551

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(CA1) Cumulative
percentage of RCRA
facilities with human
exposures to toxins
under control.
FY 2010
Target
69
FY 2010
Actual
72
FY2011
CR
Target
72
FY 2012
Target
76
Units
Percent
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(CA2) Cumulative
percentage of RCRA
facilities with
migration of
contaminated
groundwater under
control.
FY 2010
Target



61



FY 2010
Actual



63



FY2011
CR
Target



64



FY 2012
Target



67



Units



Percent



Measure
Type

Outcome

Measure
(CAS) Cumulative
percentage of RCRA
facilities with final
remedies constructed.
FY 2010
Target

35

FY 2010
Actual

37

FY2011
CR
Target

38

FY 2012
Target

42

Units

Percent

Measure
Type



Efficiency



Measure
(117) Percent increase
of final remedy
components
constructed at RCRA
corrective action
facilities per federal,
state and private sector
costs (annual).
FY 2010
Target



3



FY 2010
Actual



-9.2



FY2011
CR
Target



3



FY 2012
Target



3



Units



Percent



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
   •  (+$1,134.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
      FTE.

   •  (+$204.0 / +1.5 FTE)  This change reflects a regional redirection of 1.5 FTE from the
      RCRA Waste Management program to the RCRA Corrective Action due  to a shift of
                                        552

-------
       PCB Clean Up and Disposal resources into Corrective Action.  This shift involves 1.5
       FTE and associated payroll of $204.0.

    •   (-$818.0 / -2.0 FTE) This reduces regional oversight and technical assistance to states in
       support of the RCRA corrective action program.  This reduction includes 2.0 FTE and
       associated payroll of $272.0.

    •   (-$131.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets  certain categories of  spending for  efficiencies and  reductions,
       including  advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$91.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$61.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the  Computer  Security  Incident Response  Center  from  across  programs  to the
       Information Security program.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act,  as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Sections 3004, 3005, SOOland the Toxic Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C.
2605 et seq. -  Section 6.
                                           553

-------
                                               RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
                            Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                              Objective(s): Preserve Land

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$14,379.0
$14,379.0
82.2
FY 2010
Actuals
$13,063.3
$13,063.3
77.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$14,379.0
$14,379.0
82.2
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$9,751.0
$9,751.0
53.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($4,628.0)
($4,628.0)
-28.5
Program Project Description:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA) objectives include promoting waste
minimization and recycling through reducing the amount of waste generated and improving
recovery and  resource conservation.  In  support  of this goal, EPA built partnerships with
government agencies, businesses, and nonprofit organizations to encourage recycling and waste
prevention,  and  leveraged resources to improve  energy conservation  through  the  Resource
Conservation Challenge (RCC).103

Past non-regulatory program accomplishments in the RCC include: 1) business, government, and
institutional WasteWise partners reported preventing  or recycling more than 160 million tons of
materials and municipal solid waste since 1994;  2) 282 National Partnership for Environmental
Priorities (NPEP) partners reported cumulatively reducing the use of over 22 million pounds of
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals in industrial, business, and federal, state and
local government processes since 2004; 3) 8.2 million pounds  of TVs were reported collected
from January through August 2009 by Plug-in to eCycling program partners; and 4) partners
reported diverting more than 500 thousand pounds of waste in the 2010 Game Day  Challenge.

Moving forward, EPA recognizes the strategic importance of materials management as a catalyst
for society to examine all aspects of the material  life cycle that comprise industrial practices and
consumer habits.  EPA will use past experience with the RCC to inform activities in support of
sustainable materials management  (SMM), a significant  step that will  allow EPA to begin to
consider the human health and environmental impacts associated  with the full life  cycle of
materials—from  the amount  and toxicity of raw materials  extraction, through transportation,
processing, manufacturing, and use, as well as reuse, recycling and disposal. This approach will
seek to preserve resources by 1) minimizing inefficient or unnecessary waste generation; 2)
encouraging the use of materials that are less environmentally impacting; and 3) reducing the
total amount of virgin materials consumed.
  http://www.epa.gov/rcc/.
                                          554

-------
The U.S. consumed 57 percent more materials in the 2000 than in 1975. Today, with less than 5
percent of the world's population, the U.S. is now responsible for about one-third of the world's
total material consumption.104  Because the U.S.  accounts for such a large share of global
material  consumption and materials management is associated with  42  percent of U.S.
greenhouse  gas emissions,105  EPA believes the  U.S.'s role in identifying better methods to
manage and minimize waste production has global implications.  By considering the impacts
throughout  the  entire  life cycle,  SMM provides  a platform for identifying  and improving
domestic policies, programs, and practices that carefully consider the effect on the amounts and
types of materials used and the full  system impacts of those choices.  EPA will also  pursue
innovative  approaches by leveraging private  sector resources. For example,  the program will
encourage  producers and others in the product value chain to shift the current packaging waste
management system from one  focused  on government-funded  and  ratepayer-financed waste
diversion to one that relies on assistance from packaging producers and others to reduce public
costs and drive improvements in product design that promote environmental sustainability.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

As  the Agency increasingly focuses on SMM, EPA will initially concentrate efforts in a few
targeted industrial sectors that generate large quantities  of waste that can be reused or recycled,
offer opportunities to reduce waste prior to generation, and can minimize environmental impacts
of waste. SMM is structured to look at a larger universe of materials, the products and services
they are used for, and  analyze materials from all life cycle  stages. The SMM approach is  not
limited to "end of life" as was the main focus of the RCC.  SMM reduces the societal impact of
materials throughout their life cycle.

The implementation of SMM is fundamental to ensuring that adequate resources  are available to
meet today's needs  and those of the future.  In FY 2012, EPA, through the RCRA program, will
focus on the advancement of the SMM concept and specifically:

           1.  Provide national leadership and direction on materials management,

          2.  Ensure the safe  and effective reuse/recycling of materials,

          3.  Convene parties who would  otherwise not come together—industry,  state/local
              government  representatives,   Non-Governmental  Organizations,  and   other
              stakeholders—to pursue solutions to resource conservation,

          4.  Develop and promote national solutions for waste management,

          5.  Encourage  industry to  pursue  innovative policies and solutions to non-regulated
              environmental problems, and
104 Mates, Grecia, and Lorie Wagner. "Consumption of Materials in the United States 1900-1995." November 1998. Online:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/annrev/ar-23-107/aerdocnew.pdf
105 U.S. EPA, OSWER, OCPA.  "Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management
Practices." September 2009. Online: http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg land materials management.pdf
                                           555

-------
          6.  Provide credible scientific information and data.
EPA will  continue work on SMM environmental measurement in FY 2012. Development of
metrics  that assist in identifying data gaps,  prioritizing work, and measuring performance is
important to implementing SMM strategies, as is EPA investment in developing tools such as the
Waste Reduction Model (WaRM) that estimate accrued materials life cycle benefits in terms of
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and energy savings.  By considering the impacts throughout
the entire  life cycle (including resource extraction, material  processing, product design and
manufacturing, product use, collection and processing and disposal), SMM provides a platform
for identifying and improving domestic policies, programs, and practices that carefully consider
the effect  on the  amounts and types of materials used and the full impacts of those choices
EPA's  current  measurement approach,  as  reported in the  annual  Municipal  Solid Waste
Characterization Report, has been  based on an  approach,  assumptions,  and methodology
developed  decades  ago.   Currently,  EPA is  re-examining the data sources,  methods,  and
assumptions used to estimate U.S. materials throughout their life cycle.

As we continue to refocus the program on SMM in FY 2012, EPA will discontinue its support of
many RCC  partnership programs  by FY 2012. This  includes Recycling on the Go  (ROGO),
GreenScapes, and Carpet America  Recovery  Effort (CARE),  which will  be maintained as
information resources on the internet and no  longer require resources.  These  are primarily end-
of-life  programs,  not  directly consistent with the shift to SMM.   EPA expects that  SMM
activities discussed above that will continue to be funded in FY 2012 will achieve substantial,
tangible results in  coming years.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(MW2) Increase in
percentage of coal
combustion ash that is
beneficially used
instead of disposed.
FY 2010
Target
1.4
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
1.4
FY 2012
Target
1.4
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(MW5) Number of
closed, cleaned up, or
upgraded open dumps
in Indian Country or on
other tribal lands.
FY 2010
Target
22
FY 2010
Actual
141
FY2011
CR
Target
45
FY 2012
Target
45
Units
Dumps
                                          556

-------

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(MW8) Number of
tribes covered by an
integrated solid waste
management plan.

FY 2010
Target

23


FY 2010
Actual

23

FY2011
CR
Target

14


FY 2012
Target

5


Units

Tribes


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(MW9) Billions of
pounds of municipal
solid waste reduced,
reused, or recycled.

FY 2010
Target

20.5


FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

FY2011
CR
Target

21


FY 2012
Target

22


Units

Pounds
(Billions)

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$599.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$2,325.07 -12.7 FTE) This reflects a decrease in base funding for the program due to
       the greater focus on sustainable materials management and the discontinuation of several
       end-of-life focused  RCC  partnership  programs,  including  Recycling  on the  Go,
       Greenscapes, and Carpet  America Recovery Effort.  The reduced resources include  12.7
       FTE and associated payroll of $1,778.0.

    •   (-$2,842.07 -15.8 FTE) This decrease  in base funding reflects EPA's discontinuation of
       the  National Partnership for  Environmental Priorities  (NPEP) program  in order  to
       enhance program focus on emerging priorities. The reduced resources include 15.8 FTE
       and associated payroll of $2,212.0.

    •   (-$42.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing,  and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$18.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel  and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Sections 1002, 1003,  2002 and 8001.
                                           557

-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                     558

-------
                                 Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
                                         Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                     Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
246.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$53,458.7
$53,458.7
248.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$54,886.0
$54,886.0
246.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$70,939.0
$70,939.0
251.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$16,053.0
$16,053.0
5.5
Program Project Description:

This program  is responsible for ensuring the safety  of industrial chemicals under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), including assessing thousands of chemicals already existing in
commerce before TSCA  took effect, and preventing the  introduction into commerce  of new
chemicals that pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.  Key program efforts
include:

    •   Assessing the  safety of existing chemicals and taking regulatory and  non-regulatory
       actions to eliminate or significantly reduce unreasonable risks, including obtaining and
       making public  to the maximum  extent allowed by  law the data needed to conduct such
       assessments and support risk management actions;

    •   Reviewing and acting  on approximately 1,100 TSCA Section 5 notices, including Pre-
       Manufacture Notices (PMNs), received annually to ensure that no unreasonable risk is
       posed by new chemicals before they are introduced into U.S. commerce.

There are approximately 2,900 High Production Volume (HPV)  chemicals in commerce  that are
produced at over 1,000,000 Ibs per year, and an additional approximately 3,300 chemicals
produced at  over 25,000 Ibs per year.  EPA is committed  to assessing these  chemicals  for risk
and  taking  regulatory action to eliminate  or  significantly reduce  unreasonable  risks.  In
September 2009, Administrator  Jackson  announced  a  fundamental transformation of EPA's
approach for  ensuring chemical  safety to make  significant and  long  overdue  progress in
protecting human health and the environment, particularly from existing chemicals that have not
been tested for safety. Building  off of the Agency's  previous  approach that largely relied  on
voluntary chemical  data  submissions by  industry, throughout  FY 2010 EPA  developed and
initiated the Enhanced Chemical Management approach,  which is focused  on 1) mitigating
chemical information gaps on existing chemicals by improving chemical information collection
and management; 2)  screening  and  assessing chemical  hazards and identifying health and
environmental  risks;  and 3)  managing identified  chemical  risks.106 The  need for  such a
 'http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/Existing.Chem.Fact.sheet.pdf
                                          559

-------
transformation was also  supported  by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which
identified EPA's processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as an area in need of
transformation in its January 2009  High-Risk Series,10   and concluded that EPA's  ability to
protect public health and the environment depends on credible and timely assessment of the risks
posed by toxic chemicals.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

FY 2012 represents a crucial stage in the development of EPA's strengthened approach. As this
effort has developed, the agency has begun developing a sound chemical prioritization  structure,
based on clear, consistent, and objective criteria,  for chemical assessment and risk management
actions. This budget request will allow EPA to sustain its success in preventing unsafe new
chemicals from entering the market,  and to continue making substantial progress in its transition
to a more aggressive action-oriented approach for assessing and ensuring the safety of existing
chemicals, including:

    •   Using regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in critical exposure and health and
       safety data for chemicals already in commerce and increasing transparency and public
       access to information on TSCA chemicals;

    •   Using  data  from  all available sources  to  develop hazard characterizations  on HPV
       chemicals,  and conduct detailed chemical  risk  assessments  on  priority chemicals  to
       inform the  need for and support development and implementation of risk management
       actions;

    •   Using all  available authorities  under  TSCA to  take immediate  and lasting  action  to
       eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks and develop proven safer alternatives.

FY 2012 Investments Summary:

The FY 2012  Budget proposes a total increase of $16.1 million to more fully implement key
aspects  of the Agency's strategic  approach.   EPA's  efforts  to  assess the safety of existing
chemicals already in commerce are  supported by $15.5 million of this increase are  summarized
below. The remaining $0.6 million of the increase is for salary  increases only  in  the New
Chemicals program. A more  complete description of  FY 2012  activities and performance
supported by the total resources requested for the CRRR program is also provided  after the
summary.

    •   Increase EPA's pace in obtaining and making public TSCA chemical health and safety
       and other information, (+$2.9 million),  including:
          o
Initiate TSCA Section 4 Test Rules covering approximately 75 or more chemicals
newly  identified as  High  Production  Volume  (HPV)  chemicals  in TCSA
Inventory Update Reports submitted to EPA in 2011;
  ' http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/risks/safety-security/epa_and_toxic_chemicals.php


                                          560

-------
          o  Increase transparency by reviewing all new TSCA  chemical  health and safety
             studies  claimed  in FY 2012 as  Confidential Business Information (CBI), and
             doubling (from  2,200 to 4,400) the number of retroactive  CBI  case  reviews
             (submitted prior  to 2010), and challenging claims and declassifying studies where
             appropriate;

          o  Accelerate EPA's pace in digitizing data contained in TSCA documents received
             under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 8 - increasing to 20,000 the number of documents
             digitized and making those data, as appropriate, available to the public.

   •   Accelerating progress in characterizing the  hazards posed by  HPV  chemicals, and
       conducting  detailed chemical risk assessments on priority  chemicals (+$4.9 million),
       including:

          o  Increase by 67%,  from  300 to 500, the  number of HPV  chemicals  for which
             hazard characterizations will be completed; and

          o  Based on the Agency's chemical prioritization structure, initiate priority detailed
             chemical risk assessments in FY 2012 that will inform the need for and support
             future risk reduction actions, with  several  assessments being completed in FY
             2012;

          o  Enhance the Risk Screening Environmental Indicator (RSEI) tool to help identify
             geographic areas with particularly high risk scores associated with toxics releases
             and the  facilities  and  chemicals responsible for those scores.

   •   Undertaking risk management actions on  chemicals identified as posing  unreasonable
       human health or environmental risks (+$7.7 million), including:

          o  As previously identified in the Agency's chemical-specific action plans, complete
             developing  and  commence implementing regulatory risk  management actions
             initiated in FY 2010, continue developing actions commenced in FY 2011 and
             consider initiating approximately five  new  actions in FY 2012. To ensure that
             children's  health  and impacts  on minorities,  low  income  and indigenous
             populations  are considered, EPA will exercise its responsibilities under Executive
             Order 13045. EPA will continue to support the transition away  from  hazardous
             existing chemicals  promoting  use  of  proven  safer  chemicals,  chemical
             management practices and technologies.

In addition to the new resources requested under  this investment, EPA is proposing to redirect
5.3 FTEs within the  CRRR program currently  supporting development of Acute  Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGLs).  Work  to develop proposed values will be completed in FY 2011,
and most proposed values (260 of  277 to be developed through FY 2011)  have  already been
elevated to Interim status.  Proposed and Interim  AEGL values are immediately put to use by
first  responders and  emergency  planners, allowing  EPA to shift  these  resources to instead
support the Agency's expanding work to increase transparency in the management of the CRRR
                                          561

-------
program by maximizing the public availability of TSCA health and safety studies to the extent
allowed by law.  Combined with base program resources, the investment and redirection will
support the FY 2012 proposed activities and performance plan below.

Existing Chemicals Program:

One of EPA's primary  responsibilities under TSCA is to assess  the  safety  of  industrial
chemicals, and address unreasonable risks posed by chemicals already in commerce.   These
chemicals are employed by U.S. industries to produce widely used items, including  consumer
products such as cleansers, paints, plastics and fuels as well as industrial solvents and  additives,
in some cases leading to substantial public and environmental exposure. While these chemicals
play an important role in people's everyday lives, some may adversely affect human health and
the environment, requiring EPA to take risk management actions to address unreasonable human
health and environmental risks.

As noted  above, EPA  is  requesting increases in FY 2012 to continue making long-overdue
progress in ensuring the safety of existing chemicals: obtaining, managing and making public
chemical information; assessing chemical risks; and reducing chemical  risks. Activities proposed
to be conducted under these three components of the Existing Chemicals program are  described
below.

Obtaining, Managing and Making Public Chemical Information:

In FY 2012, the investments described here will enhance base program resources to enable EPA
to use  regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps  in critical exposure and health and safety
data for chemicals already in commerce, improve management of TSCA information resources,
and maximize their availability and usefulness to the public by:

    •  Consider issuing and implementing TSCA Section 4 Test Rules to obtain data needed to
       evaluate the safety of existing chemicals, including:

          o  More than 100 HPV chemicals not sponsored under the  HPV Challenge Program,
             which sought to obtain basic hazard data voluntarily from companies for the HPV
             chemicals known in the late 1990s;

          o  125  or more chemicals newly identified  as HPV chemicals in TCSA Inventory
             Update Reports submitted to EPA in 2011; and

          o  Several other chemicals including environmental releases of bisphenol  A  (BPA)
             and certain  nanoscale materials

    •  Processing submission of 2011 IUR data reports for chemicals produced in volumes of
       greater than 25 thousand pounds per year.

          o  In August 2010, EPA proposed modifications to the IUR rule under Section 8 of
             TSCA, presenting a range of options for public comment to make the reporting of
                                          562

-------
             chemical use information more transparent, more current, more useful, and more
             useable by the public.

   •   Increasing transparency by reviewing all new TSCA chemical health and safety studies
       claimed in FY 2012 as CBI and reviewing 4,400 CBI cases submitted prior to 2010, and
       challenging claims and declassifying studies where appropriate;

   •   Digitizing over 20,000 TSCA documents received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 8, and
       making those data, where appropriate, available to the public; and

   •   Expanding electronic reporting to include all TSCA health and safety submissions and
       fully deploying 21st century information technology to more effectively and efficiently
       store and disseminate TSCA information.

EPA will  allocate $14.7 million to obtaining and making  public chemical information in FY
2012.

Screening and Assessing Chemical Risks:

As  EPA's enhanced chemical  management  effort  has developed,  the agency has begun
developing a sound chemical prioritization structure,  based on clear, consistent, and  objective
criteria, for chemical  assessment and risk management actions. In FY 2012, the investments
described here will augment base program resources to enable EPA to assess the risks of priority
chemicals to determine what risk management is needed and to inform and support development
and implementation of risk management actions, as appropriate, by:

   •   Initiating  detailed  chemical  risk assessments of priority chemicals that will inform the
       need for and  support development  of risk management actions,  with  several of the
       assessments being completed in FY 2012;

   •   Developing hazard characterizations for 500 additional HPV chemicals using  the data
       obtained  through TSCA  test rules,  the TSCA IUR and previous voluntary  industry
       submissions, bringing the cumulative  total by the  end of FY 2012 to 2,165 of the 2,900
       HPV chemicals identified prior to the 2011 TSCA IUR;

   •   Increasing use of intelligent testing  approaches to improve our ability to understand
       chemical risks;

   •   Developing methodologies and tools to better assess risks from high priority chemicals to
       support risk management actions on these chemicals;

   •   Analyzing the data EPA has  received through  its Nanoscale Materials program to
       understand which nanoscale materials are produced, in what quantities they are produced,
       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; and
                                          563

-------
   •   Enhancing the RSEI tool to help  identify geographic areas with particularly high risk
       scores associated with toxics releases and the facilities and chemicals responsible for
       those scores.

EPA will allocate $15.6 million to assess chemicals in FY 2012.

Reducing Chemical Risks:

In FY 2012, the investments described above will augment base program resources to support
the Agency's rapidly accelerating portfolio of risk management actions, including:

   •   Advancing consideration and implementation of risk management actions initiated in FY
       2010 and continued in FY 2011, including:

          o  Consideration of Section 6 use restrictions  addressing long chain  perfluorinated
             chemicals (PFCs), hexabromocyclododecane (FffiCD), lead wheel weights, and
             mercury used in switches and certain measuring devices;

          o  Consideration of Section 5  Significant New  Use Rules (SNURs) addressing:
             polybrominated   diphenyl   ethers  (PBDEs),  nonylphenol  and  nonylphenol
             ethoxylates, elemental mercury in products, benzidine dyes, certain short chain
             chlorinated paraffins, certain phthalates and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD);
             and

          o  Consideration of Section 5(b)(4)  chemicals of concern listings addressing eight
             phthalates, potential effects of bisphenol A (BPA) in aquatic species, and PBDEs.

   •   Consider initiating  as appropriate  new risk management actions in FY 2012, including
       potential  Section 6 use restrictions/prohibitions, potential Section 5 Significant New Use
       Rules and potential Section 5(b)(4) chemicals of concern listings, informed and supported
       by priority detailed chemical risk  assessments to be initiated and developed during FY
       2012 (see Assessment section below);

   •   Proposing,  evaluating public  comments on,  and developing  two  final regulations
       implementing  ten  actions  mandated under  the  recently enacted  TSCA  Title  VI
       (Formaldehyde  Standards  for  Composite Wood Act)  establishing  national  emission
       standards for formaldehyde in new composite  wood products - the statute requires EPA
       to finalize and promulgate these regulations by  January 1, 2013;

   •   Initiating stewardship activities including commitments from industry to adopt viable
       safer alternatives, safer  best practices, voluntary  withdrawal of dangerous  chemicals
       and/or products from the market, and stewardship programs to reduce emissions;

   •   Promoting development  of proven safer chemicals, chemical management practices and
       technologies by assessing the  risks and efficacy of alternatives to existing  chemicals
       which present significant risks;  and,
                                          564

-------
    •   Improving rulemaking  and increasing  electronic reporting under  TSCA to bolster
       compliance at high-risk chemical manufacturing facilities under the Regaining Ground:
       Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas initiative.

EPA will continue to work closely with other federal agencies to coordinate efforts on addressing
identified chemical risks.

EPA will allocate $26.4 million to undertaking existing chemicals risk management actions in
FY2012.

For  more  information  on EPA's  efforts  to  assess and  act on  existing chemicals,  see
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/.

New Chemicals Program:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue preventing the entry into the U.S. market of chemicals that pose
unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.  The PMN Review component of EPA's
New Chemicals Program reviews and manages the potential risks from approximately 1,100 new
chemicals, products  of biotechnology, and new chemical nanoscale materials  prior to their entry
into the marketplace.

In January  of  2010, EPA published a final rule that enables and, by April 6, 2012, requires
manufacturers  and importers to submit Pre-Manufacture Notifications (PMNs) and other TSCA
Section 5 documents to EPA electronically via the Internet.  The Agency developed software to
assist companies in preparing  and executing their electronic  submissions  and  is conducting
training sessions via webinar and other means to help companies prepare to  comply with these
new requirements. These activities will continue through FY 2012.

Many of the chemical information management system improvements supported by the FY 2012
proposed investment that were previously described in the Existing Chemicals Section  also will
directly benefit the  New Chemicals Program,  providing  additional information  and improved
tools and automating science review work flows  to further improve EPA's  ability to quickly,
effectively, and efficiently review and act on new chemical submissions.

To measure performance under the New Chemicals Program, EPA, in FY 2006, adopted a
measure reflecting the program's statutory mission, establishing a "zero tolerance" performance
standard  for the  number of new chemicals or microorganisms introduced into commerce that
pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.

EPA will allocate $14.3 million to the New Chemicals Program in FY 2012.

For more information,  see www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.
                                          565

-------
Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(CIS) Percentage of
historical CBI claims
in health and safety
studies reviewed and
challenged, as
appropriate.

FY 2010
Target






FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target


5



FY 2012
Target


20



Units


Percent


Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(C19) Percentage of
CBI claims in health
and safety studies
reviewed and
challenged, as
appropriate, as they are
submitted.
FY 2010
Target







FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target



100



FY 2012
Target



100



Units



Percent




Measure
Type

Output



Measure
(HC1) Annual number
of hazard
characterizations
completed for HPV
chemicals

FY 2010
Target

230



FY 2010
Actual

270


FY2011
CR
Target

300



FY 2012
Target

500



Units

Hazardous
Units


Measure
Type




Outcome



Measure
(247) Percent of new
chemicals or organisms
introduced into

commerce that do not
pose unreasonable
risks to workers,
consumers, or the
environment.
FY 2010
Target




100



FY 2010
Actual



Data
Avail
10/2011



FY2011
CR
Target




100



FY 2012
Target




100



Units




Percent



                                      566

-------
Measure
Type




Efficiency




Measure
(281) Reduction in the
cost per submission of
managing
Pre Manufacture
Notices (PMNs)
through the Focus
meetings as a
percentage of baseline
year cost per
submission.
FY 2010
Target




61




FY 2010
Actual




50




FY2011
CR
Target




61




FY 2012
Target




65




Units




Percent




EPA is using the measures described below as well as implementing the previously mentioned
toxics program enhancements to evaluate program performance.

EPA will make all health and safety studies available to the public for chemicals in commerce, to
the extent allowed by law.  Between the enactment of TSCA in 1976 and January 21, 2010, a
total of 21,994 CBI  cases of TSCA  health and safety  studies were submitted for chemicals
potentially in commerce.  In recent years, hundreds of such cases have been submitted annually.
To achieve this measure, EPA must complete the following actions for new and historical
submissions by the end of 2015:  1) determine if a challenge to the CBI claim is warranted; 2)
execute the challenge if warranted; and 3) where legally defensible, declassify the information
claimed as CBI. In FY 2012, EPA will review and challenge 100% of all CBI health and safety
information as they are submitted.  In addition, EPA will review and challenge 20% (4,400) of
the 21,994 historical  TSCA  CBI claims that have not yet been reviewed and challenged, where
appropriate.

The cumulative and  annual measures tracking the percent  of new chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce  that do  not pose unreasonable risk to  human health  or the
environment, illustrate the effectiveness of EPA's new chemicals program as a gatekeeper. This
measure  analyzes  previously reviewed  new chemicals with  incoming  TSCA 8(e) notices of
substantial risk.   TSCA  requires that chemical  manufacturers,  importers,  processors  and
distributors notify EPA within thirty days of new information on chemicals that may lead to a
conclusion of unreasonable risk to  human  health or  the  environment.  Information  from
approximately thirty  8(e) notices each year is used to check the accuracy of New Chemicals
analytical tools and to make process improvements for future review of new chemicals. The
Agency has  achieved the 100 percent goal in all four years that the measure has  been tracked
(FY 2006 to FY 2009). The Agency recognizes that this measure does not involve systematic
sampling  and testing of all PMN-reviewed chemicals that have entered U.S.  commerce, but
believes nonetheless that  it  represents an efficient  approach for using available information to
assess and improve the effectiveness of EPA's new chemicals  risk screening tools and decision-
making processes. EPA continues to explore more robust options for tracking the performance
of the New Chemicals Program.
                                          567

-------
In  FY  2012,  EPA  will  track  the number  of  HPV  chemicals with  completed  hazard
characterizations.  These  hazard  characterizations summarize the adequacy  of data received
through the HPV Challenge, identify remaining data needs, and present hazard data in a concise
and uniform way.  These hazard characterizations present EPA's perspective on data regarding
ecotoxicity,   acute  toxicity,  mutagenicity,  reproductive  and   developmental  toxicity,
environmental  fate,  and  physical/chemical  properties.    EPA  has   completed  hazard
characterizations for 1,365 chemicals through FY 2010 and is targeting completion of hazard
characterizations for 300 additional chemicals in FY 2011 and 500 in FY 2012, bringing the
cumulative total to 2,165 of the 2,900 HPV chemicals identified prior to the 2011 TSCA IUR.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1,853.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$699.0) This reflects a reduction as part  of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This  initiative targets certain categories of  spending for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing and  supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and  streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •    (-$35.0) This decrease in  travel  costs reflects our  effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel conferencing.

    •   (-$14.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the  Computer  Security  Incident  Response Center from  across programs  to the
       Information Security program.

    •   (-$43.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies  from several Agency-wide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million Agency-wide.

    •   (-$22.0)  This decrease reflects a redirection   of resources  to  Human Health  and
       Ecosystems which  funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data
       for aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.

    •   (+$14,913.07+5.5 FTE) This investment will  more  fully implement the Administrator's
       Enhancing Chemical Safety  initiative,  providing increased  support  for:  initiating,
       continuing and completing actions to reduce chemical risks; assessing chemical risks; and
       obtaining needed information on potentially  hazardous chemicals while maximizing its
       availability to the public.  Embedded in this change is $100.0 and 0.5 FTE rulemaking
       resources  attributed  to  the  initiative Regaining Ground: Increasing Compliance in
       Critical Areas. The total additional resources include $814.0 associated payroll  for 5.5
       FTE.
                                           568

-------
   •   (+$100.0) This investment supports the Agency initiative Sustainability through Green
       Chemistry and Engineering by enhancing the RSEI tool to help identify geographic areas
       with particularly high risk scores associated with  toxics releases and the facilities and
       chemicals responsible for those scores.

Statutory Authority:

Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. — Sections  1-31.
                                           569

-------
                                                           Pollution Prevention Program
                                         Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                 Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$18,050.0
$18,050.0
86.6
FY 2010
Actuals
$18,014.5
$18,014.5
75.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$18,050.0
$18,050.0
86.6
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$15,653.0
$15,653.0
72.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($2,397.0)
($2,397.0)
-13.9
Program Project Description:

The Pollution  Prevention  Program  (P2) is  one  of EPA's primary  tools for encouraging
environmental  stewardship  by  federal  and state  governments, industry,  communities, and
individuals.  The P2 program is  designed to eliminate or reduce waste at the point of generation
by encouraging cleaner production processes and technologies; promoting the development and
use of safer, "greener" materials and products;  and supporting the implementation of improved
practices such as the use of conservation techniques, and the reuse  of materials in lieu of their
placement into the waste stream. As a result of the P2 program,  EPA and its partners  have
achieved significant reductions in the use of hazardous materials, energy and water; reductions in
the generation of greenhouse gases; savings in production, operation and waste management
costs; and increases in the use of safer chemicals and products.  These efforts will strengthen the
mission of the Agency  by  advancing the Administrator's  priorities to  take action  on climate
change and reduce chemical risks.  The  P2 Program is  augmented by  a counterpart  P2 grant
program in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account.

The program  accomplishes its mission  through several  centers  of results,  including  those
described below.  For more information about EPA's  Pollution Prevention  Program,  see
http ://www. epa.gov/p2/.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program

One goal of the  Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  (EPP) program is to  assist federal
agencies  in complying  with "green" purchasing requirements and, in  doing  so, to  stimulate
market demand for products and  services that are  more environmentally benign.  The energy
savings for this program also  support the federal  objectives  for  reducing energy use under
Executive Order 13514.108 As a result, the federal government can serve as a model to state and
 3 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf
                                          570

-------
local  governments, businesses and  private  individuals  by  encouraging them to take the
environment into consideration in making routine purchasing decisions.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement the Federal  Electronics Challenge  (FEC), adding
new partners  and measuring  the resulting  benefits of this  partnership program. The FEC
encourages federal facilities and agencies to  purchase greener electronic  products, reduce their
impacts during use, and manage obsolete electronics in an environmentally safe way. Through
the federal government's commitment to lead by example, EPA's EPP program is increasingly
influencing the broader marketplace to move  to greener products. EPP efforts also will continue
to promote the  use of procurement tools,  such  as  the Electronic  Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT), designed to help institutional purchasers compare and select desktop
computers, laptops, monitors, and other equipment based on  environmental attributes such as
energy savings that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions,  as quantified109  through a peer-
reviewed electronics environmental benefits calculator.110  In FY 2012,  EPEAT will continue to
develop new  manufacturing  standards for  additional electronic  products, including  mobile
devices and servers, through a consensus-based stakeholder process.

These EPP programs have  achieved significantly measurable environmental benefits.   For
example, in 2009 FEC partners reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 46,259 metric tons, the
equivalent of removing 31,000 passenger cars from the road for one year.  Equally significant,
EPP  programs serve  as models  to encourage  the  adoption of environmentally preferable
purchasing polices in the private sector, along with expanding the marketplace for such products.
The EPP program also will continue to provide technical assistance and tools for the broader
marketplace.  The EPP program will continue its partnership with GSA to encourage green travel
and green meetings across the federal government by integrating environmental  considerations
into the Federal Travel Regulations and the Federal Acquisition Regulations. In FY 2012, EPA
will continue  to engage in the development of policies and the  advancement of programs,
working with stakeholders to strengthen EPA's role in the movement toward greener products in
the Federal government as well as the private sector and consumer markets.

EPA will allocate $3.4 million to this work area in FY 2012.  EPP  resources are reduced in FY
2012 by 6.3 FTE and associated salary in order to support other high priority EPA activities.

See http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/about/about.htm  for more  information about the EPP
Program.

Green Suppliers Network (GSN) and Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) Initiative

Under the  Pollution Prevention Act,  EPA is  authorized  to  facilitate  the  adoption of source
reduction techniques by  businesses.  EPA promotes this objective through programs such as the
Green Suppliers Network (GSN) and the Economy, Energy  and Environment (E3) Initiative.
Through  the  GSN,  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 GSN will continue to partner
109 http://www.epeat.net/FastBenefits.aspx
110 http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources^encalc.htm
                                          571

-------
with the National Institute of Standards and  Technology's (NIST) Manufacturing  Extension
Partnership (MEP) program as well as state pollution prevention programs to deploy the program
across the nation's largest manufacturing supply chains.

In recent years, the GSN program has expanded and evolved in ways that led to the formation of
the  E3 Initiative.  GSN has grown steadily in terms of the number of manufacturing concerns
that are participating in "lean and clean" assessments.  In FY 2010,  EPA began to phase out the
federal cost share of these assessments, thereby saving funds for other protective uses.  In FY
2011, the energy efficiency component of GSN  has taken on greater prominence,  driven by
increasing recognition that both environmental and economic gains depend on reduced energy
consumption.  The awareness of these linkages acted as a catalyst for the integration of GSN
with the broader E3 Initiative, which seeks to promote energy efficiency and environmental and
economic assessment more  holistically.    While  GSN  focuses  on  the  supply chain,  E3
concentrates on community-based work with  manufacturers, including suppliers, and adds an
energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction component to GSN.

E3  is  a cooperative  initiative  involving federal and local partners.   Through this  effort,
manufacturers are provided with customized, hands-on assessments and technical  assistance
aimed  at reducing  energy consumption,  minimizing their carbon  footprint, reducing  the
generation  and use of hazardous materials,  increasing  economic productivity,  and  driving
innovation. E3 is also a community-based  initiative which helps  foster a smarter  and more
efficient green workforce, promote sustainable manufacturing  and growth through innovative
technology, improve the regional economy by  retaining jobs, and reduce environmental impacts
while regaining competitive advantage. The initiative has evolved from pilot projects  conducted
in FY  2009 and FY 2010  in Columbus, Ohio and San Antonio, Texas  to include  additional
efforts  initiated in FY 2010 in Alabama, West  Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and parts
of Michigan and North Carolina.  Statewide expansions of E3 efforts in Ohio and Texas are now
occurring.

In FY 2012, the GSN program will continue to operate within the framework of E3, focusing on
"lean and clean" assessment work with suppliers.  In FY 2012, GSN will work with  its federal
partners to strengthen technical  assistance offerings,  especially in the energy efficiency and
environmental areas which will support federal energy use objectives under Executive Order
13514.  Also in FY 2012, GSN will continue  to strengthen its results  algorithm to support the
reporting of more rigorous  and transparent program results.  The program will rely on private
and social Return on Investment estimations as incentives  to drive  the program forward.  As a
core component of E3, GSN will continue to place particular emphasis on collaboration, working
in close cooperation with other federal departments and agencies including the Department of
Energy, the Small  Business Administration and  the Department of Labor in addition to the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program of the Department of Commerce.

As of September 2010, more than 200 small businesses had taken part in GSN assessments, and
several hundred more had benefited from the application of GSN "lean and clean" principles by
state and local programs  helping small businesses reduce their  environmental  impacts.   In
addition, in FY 2010, 30 businesses completed E3 assessments and in  FY 2011, GSN and E3
                                          572

-------
assessments together are expected to reach some  100 additional firms.  In FY 2012,  this
combined total is expected to triple.

EPA will allocate $3.3 million to this work area in FY 2012.

For more information on the Green Suppliers Network and E3 activity, visit
http://www.greensuppliers.gov/gsn/home.gsn and www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/e3.html.

Green Chemistry

The Green Chemistry Program fosters the design and marketplace acceptance of chemicals and
chemical processes that reduce adverse environmental and  human  health impacts as well as
costs.  In promoting the reduction or elimination of hazardous chemicals and generation of
waste, Green Chemistry substitutes also help reduce workplace exposure to dangerous chemicals
and manufacturing and production processes as well as the need for end-of-pipe controls. Green
Chemistry also has shown  results in achieving  energy savings and reducing greenhouse gases
through the development of more environmentally benign alternatives.111 One of the program's
primary strategies for achieving its results is the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, with
its associated awards.  Businesses and academic non-profit institutions compete for recognition
in five categories annually.

In FY 2012, the program will focus on the development of environmentally preferable substitutes
for priority chemicals. Also, in FY 2012, the program will conduct communication and outreach
through information postings  on the Green  Chemistry website to promote  safer chemicals.
Additionally, in FY 2012, Green Chemistry will continue to seek to leverage resources for the
development of safer substitutes through the National Science Foundation (NSF) and EPA's
Research and Development research strategies, such as influencing federal grant solicitations for
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and  the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants.

EPA  will allocate $1.2 million to this work area  in FY  2012.  Green  Chemistry program
resources  are reduced in FY 2012 by $900,000 to support other high priority EPA activities,
reducing support for communications and outreach efforts.

For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/.

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 promoting the
development and assessment of safer alternatives.  The program provides hazard information on
potential substitutes  for priority chemicals and assists  companies in making product design
improvements that  will  help  reduce  risks.   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 participating in  the  program  and driving  change,  DfE  offers
  http://www.epa.gov/gcc/pubs/pgcc/technology.htmltfrenewableResources
                                          573

-------
technical tools, methodologies, and expertise. DfE also allows companies making products that
are safer for the environment to communicate their leadership to customers through the use of a
DfE logo.  This is especially important to small businesses that do not have the broad range of
scientific and technical expertise needed to conduct a hazard assessment.  EPA's DfE Program
helped companies reduce  or eliminate the use of more than 460 million pounds  of hazardous
                                    119
chemicals in calendar year 2009 alone.

In FY 2012, DfE  will continue to collaborate with industry and non-governmental  organizations
to reduce risk from chemicals. DfE's Safer Product Labeling Program differentiates products that
are safer for people and the  environment. The program is growing quickly and currently allows
use of its logo on more than 2,000 products, primarily in the cleaning sector, that are safer than
other similar products in the marketplace.  DfE is working on enhancements to its Standard for
Safer Products that, in addition to the stringent requirements  that currently apply to a full range
of toxicological  and environmental  endpoints,  will  also require ingredient disclosure as  a
condition for products to carry the label.

In FY 2012, DfE will  continue the Best Practices for Auto-Refmishing project.  The best
practices developed through that project in collaboration with small business allowed for safer
use of diisocyanates and formed the basis of a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous  Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for  area sources engaged in  paint  stripping and surface coating of motor
vehicles and mobile equipment. DfE in FY 2012 will continue to provide compliance assistance
training to auto-refmishing shops and career/technical schools in complying with that regulation,
which took effect in January 2011.

DfE is developing a life-cycle assessment of nanomaterials  in lithium-ion batteries for hybrid
electric vehicles.  The assessment is scheduled to be made final at the beginning of FY 2012, a
slight delay from its originally scheduled completion in FY  2011. The  goal of this work is to
identify those materials  and processes within a product's lifecycle which are likely to pose the
greatest impacts  to public health and the environment.   Industry  provides  in-kind technical
support  to DfE's lifecycle  assessment work  and is  responsible for furnishing  accurate and
comprehensive information as  well  as  undertaking portions of the  needed analysis.   As
nanotechnology is  employed  in  lithium-ion battery  products, this effort also will  promote
nanotechnology innovations in  advanced batteries that will reduce  overall environmental
impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions.113

The Green  Engineering Program (GE),  a component  of  DfE,  provides leadership  in  the
development of  sustainability  education  materials  and  incorporation  of  environmentally
beneficial approaches and tools  such as life-cycle assessment, risk-based tools, and  advanced
design techniques in engineering education.   In FY 2012,  the GE program will continue  its
outreach efforts to maximize adoption of the updated GE Textbook by universities in the U.S.
and  other  countries. EPA's goal  for the fiscal  year is that at least 10-20 new  chemical
engineering departments in  the U.S.  will employ  the GE Textbook and that other university
departments at home and abroad will adopt it as well.
112 http://www.epa.gov/dfe/product label consumer.html#consumers
113 http://www.epa.gov/dfe/altemative assessments.html#
                                           574

-------
The GE program also encourages the adoption of green engineering approaches that will help
chemical  manufacturers  reduce their environmental footprint, with  a particular focus  on
promoting the reuse of solvents.  In FY 2012, GE will continue providing technical support to a
solid waste rulemaking effort under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) with
the aim of facilitating a green engineering exclusion supporting solvent remanufacture.  This
exclusion would help to expand opportunities to apply GE approaches within manufacturing
facilities in the pharmaceuticals, paints and coatings,  organic chemical  manufacturing, and
plastics & resins industries, and in  surrounding communities.  Program implementation is
expected to reduce pollution,  save energy, and conserve water by  achieving efficiencies  in
solvent distillation and reducing the need for incineration and the manufacture of virgin solvents.
A pilot effort with the pharmaceutical industry is anticipated to be conducted in FY 2013.

EPA will allocate $2.2 million to this work area in  FY 2012.  DfE resources are reduced  by
$1,311,000 and 3.0 FTE in FY 2012 to support other  high  priority EPA activities, reducing
partnerships including those with the photovoltaic and automotive refmishing industries.

For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dfe/ and
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/

Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH)

This voluntary program, formerly known as Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), with
more than 1,250 hospital partners, became an independent non-profit organization in calendar
year 2006.  This program was 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 as Energy Star, Green Suppliers Network and EPEAT.
The independent PSH organization  continues to provide outreach, education,  and recognition
programs.  Also, in its current capacity, PSH is participating in EPA rulemaking workgroups in
the area of pharmaceutical waste management.   In FY 2012, EPA, through the PSH program,
expects to start up  new GSN- or E3-related efforts and promote  the use of  additional  safer
products in the health care sector.

EPA will allocate $0.2 million to this work area in FY 2012.

For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm.

Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance

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 Pollution Prevention
Resource  Exchange Programs,  described  under  the  companion Categorical  Grants:  Pollution
Prevention Program, resources are made available to a wide variety of applicants through Source
                                          575

-------
Reduction Assistance (SRA) grants issued annually on a competitive basis. In FY 2012, EPA
expects to award 20 to 30 grants, ranging between $10-$ 100 thousand.
SRA grants support pollution prevention solutions resulting in energy and water conservation,
reduction of greenhouse gases, and a wide variety of reductions in the use of hazardous materials
and generation of other  pollutants.  Projects in the past have included the  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 approximately $5.3 million to this work area in FY 2012,  complementing the
$5.0 million of P2 Categorical Grant resources.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(P25) Percent
increased in use of
safer chemicals
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target
7
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(262) Gallons of water
reduced through
pollution prevention.
FY 2010
Target
26.2
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
28.6
FY 2012
Target
27.8
Units
Gallons
(Billions)
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(263) Business,
institutional and
government costs
reduced through
pollution prevention.
FY 2010
Target
1,060
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
1,042
FY 2012
Target
950
Units
Dollars
Saved
(Millions)

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(264) Pounds of
hazardous materials
reduced through
pollution prevention.

FY 2010
Target

1,625


FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011

FY2011
CR
Target

1,549


FY 2012
Target

1,000


Units

Pounds
(Millions)

                                           576

-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(297) Metric Tons of
Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent (MTCO2e)
reduced, conserved, or
offset through
pollution prevention.
FY 2010
Target
5.9
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
5.7
FY 2012
Target
6
Units
MTCO2e
(Millions)
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
(298) Energy savings
per dollar invested in
the Federal Electronics
Challenge (FEC)
program.
FY 2010
Target
1.89
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
1.89
FY 2012
Target
2.32
Units
BTUs per
M/$
The P2 program aggregates results from all of the programs described above.  The program
strives to ensure that a transparent and consistent measurement framework is applied across the
program.  In September 2008, the P2 program consulted with EPA's Science Advisory Board on
the issue of recurring results.   Based on its  feedback,  each component of the P2 program
beginning in FY 2010 commenced counting recurring results for an appropriate and reasonable
timeframe to fully realize the ongoing benefits of program activities.   Under this approach,
annual performance targets are set by estimating each program's ability to generate new annual
results in the budget year using resources allocated for that year. Prior years' recurring results
are then added to the new annual results to provide  a basis for setting aggregate performance
targets. The recurring results  component of these measures frequently increases from year to
year as additional years of prior results are added (recently obtained FY 2009 actuals, in this
case) or when more recent prior results are greater than older prior results that are dropped from
the calculations at the end  of their recurring life cycle. Therefore, GPRA targets, which combine
the new annual and the recurring results, can increase even when budget reductions decrease the
new  annual results for  the budget year.  Although PSH  became an  independent  non-profit
organization in calendar year 2006, new annual  targets will continue to contribute to recurring P2
measures through FY 2011 due to the four year  recurring result life cycle for PSH.

In 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, the P2 program reduced 494 million
pounds of hazardous materials, saved $ 276.5  million dollars, and conserved 4.7 billion gallons
of water and  1.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.  In 2012, the program has set
targets to reduce  1,064 billion pounds  of hazardous materials, save  $847  million dollars,
conserve 27.8 billion gallons of water, and reduce 6.3 million metric  tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents.

EPA will improve P2 efficiency by increasing  energy savings per dollar invested in the Federal
Electronics Challenge (FEC) program by 2.32 BTUs per dollar in FY 2012.  The Design for the
Environment (DfE)  chemicals of concern efficiency measure ended in FY 2010.  This measure
                                          577

-------
tracked the annual reductions of DfE chemicals of concern per federal dollar invested in the DfE
program.

Beginning in FY 2012, EPA will track the percent increase in the use of safer chemicals from the
2009 baseline of 476 million  gallons.   EPA expects to achieve a 7% increase in FY 2012,
contributing to achievement of the P2 Program's commitment in EPA's new Strategic Plan to
increase use of safer chemicals by 40% by 2015.

GE new annual targets have been reduced to zero for FY 2011 and FY 2012 due to the Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) rulemaking that
is  critical to industry partners' implementation of re-use of solvents.  The DSW rule was
finalized in October 2008  and throughout 2008  EPA had partnership  discussions with the
pharmaceutical industry to launch a pilot; however, the rulemaking  was remanded by the courts
in  2009 based on a petition by the Sierra Club. The settlement agreement required ORCR to
revise the rulemaking.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$705.07-4.5 FTE)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for
       existing FTE, and a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.

    •   (-$914.07-6.3  FTE)  Thisreduction  to  the Environmental  Purchasing program will
       eliminate provide support to EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management
       to green the Agency's facilities and procurement actions. The program will eliminate its
       outreach  and education  efforts  on  green purchasing.  The decrease will diminish
       environmental results by approximately 31 percent, including anticipated reductions in
       costs, water  usage and CO2, other hazardous substances, and payroll.  The reduction
       includes -$914.0 in payroll associated with -6.3 FTE.

    •   (-$20.07-0.1 FTE) This represents a general reduction to the  Green Suppliers Network in
       support of EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align
       resources, skills  and Agency  priorities.   The  reduction  includes  -$14.0  in  payroll
       associated with -0.1 FTE.

    •   (-$900.0) This reduces the Green Chemistry program's communications and outreach
       efforts, resulting  in  fewer nominations  received  combined  with  the reduction  in
       publication  and  marketing of  award-winning  technologies, possibly  resulting  in
       limitations on the technology transfer and adoption  of these technologies. The decrease
       will diminish environmental results by approximately 28 percent.

    •   (-$756.07-1.0  FTE) This reduction reflects the termination  of ongoing Design  for the
       Environment  partnerships  including  those with  the  photovoltaic  and  automotive
       refmishing industries. The decrease will diminish environmental results by approximately
       28 percent, including anticipated reductions in costs, water usage and CO2, and other
       hazardous substances.   The reduction includes -$142.0 in payroll  associated with -1.0
       FTE.
                                          578

-------
    •   (-$539.07-2.0 FTE) This reflects a decrease in the Green Engineering program resources.
       The reduction includes -$284.0 in payroll associated with -2.0 FTE.

    •   (+$181.0) This  increase  supports  enhanced national  coordination  of the Pollution
       Prevention Technical Assistance program centers.

    •   (-$113.0)  This reflects a reduction  as part of the Administrative  Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories  of  spending for  efficiencies and reductions,
       including  advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and  supplies.  EPA will
       continue its  work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$7.0)  This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the Computer  Security  Incident Response  Center  from  across programs  to  the
       Information  Security program.

    •   (-$17.0)  This decrease  in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce  the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$17.0)  This decrease  reflects  a redirection  of resources to  Human  Health and
       Ecosystems that funds ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for
       aquatic life, terrestrial plants and wildlife.

 Statutory Authority:

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. et seq. - Sections 6601-6610;  Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C.  2601 et seq. - Section 10.
                                           579

-------
                                         Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
                                         Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                     Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$6,025.0
$6,025.0
33.4
FY 2010
Actuals
$7,193.0
$7,193.0
37.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,025.0
$6,025.0
33.4
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$6,105.0
$6,105.0
33.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$80.0
$80.0
-0.4
Program Project Description:

The  Chemical  Risk Management (CRM) Program supports national  programs  aimed at
mitigating chemical risk and exposure through reductions in use and safe removal, disposal and
containment of certain prevalent,  high-risk chemicals, known generally as legacy chemicals.
Some of these chemicals were used widely in commerce and introduced into the environment
before their risks were known.  The CRM Program currently focuses on providing assistance to
federal agencies and  others with responsibility  for ensuring proper use of polychlorinated
biphenyls  (PCBs) and  limiting exposures to them in buildings such  as schools,  reducing or
eliminating the use of products containing mercury, and implementing statutory requirements to
address asbestos risks in schools.

FY2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Use authorizations for PCBs are over thirty years old and the Agency is revisiting some of them.
In FY 2010, the Agency published an Advance Notice  of Proposed Rulemaking and held six
public meetings to take comment on whether some existing uses need to be phased out through a
regulatory effort.  In FY 2011, EPA plans to initiate the development of a proposed rule related
to PCB manufacture, processing, use, and distribution in commerce.  In FY 2012, the Agency
will propose the rule, augmented by voluntary options  as appropriate.

Caulk and fluorescent light ballasts, containing PCBs, were used in some buildings, including
schools, in the 1950s through the 1970s and may pose risks over time.  To minimize the risk of
PCB exposure, EPA provides school administrators and building managers with information and
recommendations about managing PCBs in caulk  and ballasts and provides  tools to help
minimize possible exposure among both children and adults.  These efforts will continue in FY
2012. The Agency also will assist communities and building and facility managers in identifying
potential problems and, if necessary, assist with the development of plans for PCB testing and
removal.  EPA is conducting research to better  understand the risks posed by caulk containing
PCBs. To address harmful exposures from PCBs in caulk, the CRM program is working closely
                                          580

-------
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery  and the Research and Development Programs,
which will jointly have the lead on reviewing caulk removal and disposal  plans.  For more
information on PCBs in caulk see http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/ and for PCBs in light ballasts
see http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/ballasts.htm.

Mercury

In FY 2012, EPA will  continue to promote the reduction of mercury  use  in products,  both
domestically and internationally, as a component of its strategy to prevent mercury releases to
air, water, and land.  These releases may occur during manufacturing and industrial processes,
during use or during the disposal  or  recycling of mercury-containing products and wastes.
Domestically, EPA is focusing its reduction efforts on switches, relays, and measuring devices
because  those sectors represent the majority of mercury use in  products and because cost-
effective alternatives are generally available.  In FY 2010, the Agency finalized a significant new
use rule (SNUR) under TSCA Section  5(a) for flow meters, natural  gas  manometers, and
pyrometers - mercury products that are no longer manufactured or imported.  In  FY 2011, the
Agency  will propose  a SNUR for additional mercury  products  - including  manometers,
barometers, and  hygrometers. The Agency also  is considering regulatory and voluntary options
for other mercury products, specifically button cell batteries, switches, relays,  flame sensors and
non-fever thermometers.  Work on developing these options will  result in  the issuance  of a
proposed rule expected  to  occur in FY 2012.  In addition, the Agency has been  working in
collaboration with the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the American
Petroleum Institute, and ASTM International to promote the use of non-mercury thermometers in
industrial settings and throughout the federal government.

The Agency maintains a mercury use and products database114 to identify products containing
mercury and associated non-mercury product alternatives.   To date,  the database includes 4,677
products (4,522  mercury containing and 155 non-mercury containing alternatives) produced by
553 manufacturers in 16 industry sectors.  The database supports identification of opportunities
for risk reduction including collaborative efforts to reduce the use of mercury. For example, the
database has been used to  support development of the TSCA Section 5(a) SNUR on various
types of meters (described above) and was used to support a tri-national  (U.S./Canada/Mexico)
mercury products partnership  sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.  In
FY 2012, updates and  expansion of the mercury use and products database are planned to
support the Agency's development and implementation of the regulatory and voluntary options
selected  for  other mercury  products  and  for  negotiating the United  Nations  Environment
Programme (UNEP) mercury  effort.

The majority of the mercury deposition in the U.S. originates outside of our borders. In February
2009, the UNEP Governing Council adopted a  mandate for the initiation of negotiations  on a
legally  binding  agreement to develop a  comprehensive  and  suitable approach  to  mercury,
including provisions to reduce the supply,  demand, international  trade in,  and  emissions of
mercury.  At that meeting, the U.S. delegation agreed to  support this mandate.  Negotiations
regarding the  agreement will proceed until February 2013.   In  the  interest  of meeting the
mandate, in FY  2012, the Agency will continue to support voluntary reductions  in the use of
  http://www.epa.gov/mercury/database.htm
                                          581

-------
mercury through existing partnerships.  In FY 2010, the Agency supported and organized the
initial meeting of the UNEP Mercury-Containing Products Partnership Area (Products Partnership)
which was held in Washington, DC. In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to implement a range
of UNEP mercury partnerships, including a mercury waste partnership and a storage and supply
partnership, to  address  the use, storage  and disposal  of mercury in developing countries.
Particular emphasis will be placed on reductions of mercury use in health care settings  and
schools and the development of options for proper mercury waste storage in those institutions.
The program will continue to track mercury reductions from the UNEP mercury partnerships and
build from successful pilots and lessons learned from these projects.   For more information, see
http ://www. epa.gov/mercury/.

Asbestos/Fibers

Congress passed the Asbestos  Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in 1986 and the
Agency finalized the implementing regulations in 1987.  For schools, AHERA requires,  among
other things,  an  original asbestos inspection, an asbestos re-inspection every  three years for
schools that  contain asbestos, the development and maintenance of an asbestos management
plan,  custodial training on asbestos, and a requirement that schools use trained professionals to
perform  asbestos inspections and abatement  work.  In  FY  2012,  the Agency will continue
providing  outreach  and technical  assistance under  the  asbestos  program  for  schools in
coordination with other federal agencies, states, and organizations to help schools understand and
comply with AHERA requirements.115 These efforts are aimed at helping to  ensure that children
will be protected from the possibility of exposure to asbestos in school  buildings.  In FY 2012,
the Agency will continue to provide federal oversight and assistance for the following:

    •   Interpreting regulatory requirements to delegated state and local asbestos programs,116
    •   Responding  to tips and  complaints  (e.g., calls from  concerned parents and teachers)
       regarding asbestos in schools by  conducting onsite inspections  or coordinating with
       delegated states,117
    •   Responding to public requests for assistance regarding asbestos in schools,118 and
    •   Helping   asbestos  training  providers   comply  with  the Model   Accreditation  Plan
       requirements by providing regulatory interpretation of its requirements.119

The Agency will continue to  provide assistance in addressing risks related to some  vermiculite
insulation. A mine near Libby, Montana  was the source of over 70 percent of all  vermiculite
sold in the U.S. from 1919 to  1990.  Due to a naturally-occuring deposit  of asbestos at that mine,
the vermiculite from Libby is contaminated with asbestos.  In FY 2010 and FY 2011,  the Agency
provided  technical assistance and advice  to the  public  regarding vermiculite  that potentially
contains asbestos.  In FY 2012, the Agency will continue outreach activities  to the public related
to  identifying and  taking  appropriate  precautions in  dealing  with  asbestos-contaminated
115 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/index.html.
116 http://www.epa. gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/help.html#role'l
117http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html
118 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/regioncontact.html
119 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/asbestos/pubs/ndaac.html
                                            582

-------
vermiculite.    For  more  information  on  EPA's  efforts  to  reduce  asbestos  risk,  see
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/verm.html.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program project supports EPA's objective to manage risks from well known
nationally recognized chemicals.  Currently, the program measures progress through a suite of
internal measures.   In FY 2012, the program will continue to explore options for an external
measure to reflect progress under this program project. There are no specific measures for this
program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$134.0) This funding increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for
       existing FTE.

    •    (-0.4 FTE) This reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.

    •   (-$37.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$6.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agency-wide IT projects such as
       email  optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and  others
       totaling $10 million agency-wide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

    •   (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. - Sections 1-31.  Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA), 20 U.S.C. 4011 et seq. - Sections 502-512. Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA), 15 U.S.C. 2641 et seq. - Sections 201-216.
                                           583

-------
                                            Toxic Substances:  Lead Risk Reduction Program
                                             Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
                                Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                           Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                     (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$14,329.0
$14,329.0
87.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$13,429.3
$13,429.3
81.9
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$14,329.0
$14,329.0
87.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$14,332.0
$14,332.0
85.8
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$3.0
$3.0
-1.2
Program Project Description:

Recent data  show  significant  progress in the  continuing  effort to eliminate  childhood lead
poisoning  as a public  health concern.   EPA has historically measured progress by tracking
reductions in the number of children  with elevated blood lead levels  of  10 micrograms per
deciliter or higher.   Data released in 2010 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) indicate that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning has declined from approximately
1.6 percent of children in 2002  to 0.9 percent of children in 2006.12° These results show that the
federal government is making greater than expected progress and well on  track toward achieving
its goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern, at those blood levels,
by 2010.121 However, given the low number of children with blood lead levels of 10 micrograms
per deciliter or higher as reported in the CDC data, it is  statistically impossible to continue to
provide an estimate of that number.

Results of recent  studies indicate adverse health effects to children at blood levels lower than the
CDC's recognized  threshold  of 10  micrograms per  deciliter.122  In   response to  this new
information and the fact that the  potential for exposure posed by lead-based paint still exists in
                                                     1 9^
approximately 38 million homes built  before 1978,    EPA is now targeting reductions  in the
number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher.  The lead
120 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2009. Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2009.
http: //www. childstats. go v/americaschildren/phenviro 3. asp.
121 "President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children"
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/fedstrategy2000.pdf
122 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006)
http://cfpub. epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay. cfm?deid=l 58823
4 Jacobs, D.E.; Clickner, R.P.; Zhou, J. Y.; Viet, S.M.; Marker, D.A.; Rogers, J.W.; Zeldin, B.C.; Broene, P.; and Friedman, W.
(2002). The prevalence of lead-based paint hazard in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(10): A599-A606
Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children - how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16): 1515-1516
http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.nejm.20030417.pdf
Lanphear BP, Homung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an
international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7): 894-899
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi? doi= 10.1289/ehp.7688
                                              584

-------
program also tracks the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income children and non-
low-income children.  The program uses these performance measures to track progress toward
eliminating childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations.

EPA's Lead Risk Reduction program contributes to the  goal  of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning by implementing the Lead Renovation Repair and Painting standard, including:

    •   Establishing standards governing lead hazard identification and abatement practices and
       maintaining a national pool of professionals  trained and certified to implement those
       standards;

    •   Providing information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions and
       take actions about lead hazards in their homes;

    •   Establishing work practice standards and training and certification requirements for lead-
       based abatement, inspection and risk assessment activities and for renovation, repair and
       painting projects in homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint; and

    •   Establishing a national pool of certified firms and individuals who are trained to carry out
       renovation and repair and painting projects while adhering to the lead-safe work practice
       standards and to minimize lead dust hazards created in the course of such projects.

For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/lead.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA plans to continue implementing the lead-based paint abatement program and
the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, which took effect April 22, 2010.  The Agency
will work to fulfill a federal court settlement agreement entered into in August 2009 between the
U.S. EPA and the Sierra Club (and other public interest groups) requiring, among other things,
the U.S. EPA to issue a proposed rule for renovations on the exteriors of public and commercial
buildings by December 15, 2011, to take final action  on the exterior rule by July  15, 2013, to
determine, after consulting with the Science Advisory Board, whether renovations on the interior
of public and commercial buildings create lead-based paint hazards and, if so, issue a proposed
rule regulating these renovations within 18 months after receiving the SAB report.  The Agency
will also work to revisit the lead dust standard and definition of lead-based paint, as announced
in response  to a petition from the Sierra Club  and other public interest groups;  and continue
providing education and outreach.  Information on state and tribal  grants for implementation of
lead programs, including targeted grants for the most at-risk communities, is presented in the
Categorical Grants Lead Program.

Revise and Implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule to
address lead hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities in homes  and child-
                                          585

-------
                 1 94
occupied facilities  . As of January 19, 2011, 10 states have become authorized to enforce and
administer this program. In the remaining non-authorized states, tribes and territories, EPA will
continue to accredit training providers, track training class notifications (i.e., classes scheduled,
classes cancelled and renovators certified), and certify renovation firms. EPA also will assist in
the development  and review of state and tribal  applications  for authorization to administer
training and certification programs, provide information to renovators and homeowners, provide
oversight and guidance to all  authorized programs, and disseminate model  training courses for
lead-safe work practices. As of January 19, 2011, EPA has accredited 472 training providers who
have conducted more than 26,400 courses, trained an estimated 558,500 workers,  and EPA has
certified more than 75,500 renovation firms.

Shortly  after its promulgation, several petitions were filed challenging the RRP rule.  On August
24, 2009, EPA signed an agreement with environmental and children's health advocacy groups
in settlement of their petitions.  The agreement calls for the Agency to undertake two separate
rulemakings to revise provisions of the RRP rule and two additional rulemakings, including  an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), to  address work in public and commercial
buildings not covered  by the RRP rule.   In FY 2012, EPA will  focus  on completing and
implementing these rulemakings as described below.

Revise Provisions of the RRP

•     Rule#l: "Opt-outRule"

On April 22, 2010, EPA issued a final rule removing the provision in the RRP rule that allowed
homeowners to opt out of the rule if:  1) they occupy the housing to be renovated, 2) no child
under six or pregnant woman lives there, and 3) no child under six is present on a  regular basis.
The result is that the RRP rule now covers an estimated 50 percent more  renovations, greatly
increasing the number  of children and adults protected against exposures  to lead-based paint
hazards, but also increasing the scope of the implementation and compliance efforts facing the
Agency and the states.

•     Rule #2: "Clearance Rule "

On April 22, 2010, the Agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to
require renovation firms to conduct quantitative dust wipe sampling at the conclusion of a subset
of renovations that typically create large amounts of leaded dust and to demonstrate  through
quantitative dust  wipe  sampling that they have  achieved  the established  dust-lead clearance
standards.  In FY 2011, the agency will  respond to comments on the NPRM and complete any
additional analysis necessary to issue a final rule by July 15, 2011, as stipulated in the settlement
agreement.  Changes to existing agency outreach and  training materials will be identified  to
address  the final  action to be published in July  2011. Revised materials will be  developed,
printed and disseminated via the National Lead Information Center in FY 2012.
 'http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/faq2.htm


                                          586

-------
Extend RRP to Public and Commercial Buildings

•      Rule #3: "Exterior Rule"

By December  15,  2011,  the  Agency  must  issue  an NPRM to establish work  practice
requirements for renovations on the exterior of public and commercial buildings other than child-
occupied facilities. Final action on the Exterior NPRM must be taken by July 15, 2013. In FY
2011 and FY 2012, the Agency will be conducting technical and economic data analysis for the
NPRM in order to meet the December 2011 deadline. In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the Agency will
be responding to public comments on the NPRM and conducting the analysis necessary to take
final action by July 15, 2013, as stipulated in the settlement agreement.

•      Rule #4: "InteriorRule"

By September 30, 2011, the Agency must consult with the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
on a risk assessment methodology to evaluate the hazards posed by renovations in the interior of
public  and commercial buildings not covered by the final RRP rule. In July and December 2010,
the Agency consulted with  the SAB on this issue.  Within 18 months after receiving the final
SAB report, the Agency must either issue a NPRM to establish work practice requirements for
interior renovations in public and commercial buildings or conclude that these activities do not
create  lead-based paint hazards.  In FY 2012, the Agency will evaluate the  results of the SAB
review and conduct the additional analysis necessary to make a final determination on issuing
proposed work practice requirements for this category of renovations.

Additionally, a compliance  assistance and outreach effort to support the RRP regulation and to
increase public awareness about preventing childhood lead poisoning will continue in FY 2012.
This effort includes a national public service advertising initiative with the Ad Council and a
companion marketing effort to target awareness messages to audiences affected by the RRP  and
those at particular risk. A print version of the public  service announcement appeared in the
October and November 2010 editions of more than 200 consumer magazines around the country.
This effort includes:

   •   Education efforts aimed at all  regulated parties including training providers, contractors
       and landlords;

   •   Outreach to states, tribes, and territories to encourage delegation of authorized programs;

   •   Public  awareness efforts targeted  at homeowners, parents,  educators and others to
       encourage use of lead-safe work practices when renovating; and

   •   Compliance assistance to contractors that are subject to the rule and to states and tribes to
       ensure that they comply with the RRP rule requirements.

Revisit the Lead Dust Standard and Definition of Lead-Based Paint

On August 10, 2009,  EPA received a TSCA Section 21 petition requesting the Agency to lower
                                          587

-------
lead dust hazard  standards and to modify the definition of lead-based paint in its regulations
promulgated  under sections 401  and 403  of the  Toxic Substances  Control  Act  (TSCA).
Specifically, petitioners requested that EPA:

    •   Lower lead dust hazard standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b), 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), and
       40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40  micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area
       (lig/ft2) to 10  |ig/ft2 or less for floors and from 250 |ig/ft2 to 100  |ig /ft2 or less for
       window sills.

    •   Modify the definition of lead-based paint at 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 for previously
       applied  paint  or  other  surface coatings in  housing, child-occupied facilities,  public
       buildings and commercial buildings to reduce the lead levels from 0.5 percent by weight
       (5,000 parts  per  million  (ppm)) to  0.06  percent  by  weight  (600 ppm) with a
       corresponding reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard.

The petition was filed by the National Center for Healthy Housing, the Alliance for Healthy
Homes, the Sierra Club and others.125 On October 22, 2009, EPA responded to the petition and
agreed to revisit the current lead dust hazards standard and to work with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to reconsider the definition of lead-based paint in  its
regulations.

In July and December 2010, the Agency consulted with the SAB on the hazard standard issue. In
2011, EPA will initiate risk analysis.  In FY 2012, the Agency will continue  its risk analyses to
determine if it will lower the dust lead hazard standards and work with HUD  to determine if the
definition of lead-based paint should be modified.

Provide Education & Outreach

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to  provide education and outreach to the public  on the
hazards of lead-contaminated paint, dust and soil.  Particular emphasis will  be placed 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, (low-income was defined at a Poverty Income
Ratio (PIR)  of  less  than  or equal to  1.3  as defined  by the Center  of  Disease  Control).
Additionally, the program  will continue to  provide technical and policy assistance to  states,
tribes, and other federal agencies to help facilitate compliance with federal requirements such as
the lead disclosure standards that are applicable to sales and rentals of  pre-1978  housing.
Finally, EPA will continue to provide support to the National Lead Information Center (NLIC) to
disseminate information to the public through a telephone hotline and in electronic form.
  'http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Day-06/t23929.pdf
                                           588

-------
Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(008) Percent of
children (aged 1-5
years) with elevated
blood lead levels (>5
ug/dl).

FY 2010
Target

3.5


FY 2010
Actual

Data
Avail
11/2012

FY2011
CR
Target

No Target
Established


FY 2012
Target

1.5


Units

Percent


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(009) Cumulative
number of certified
Renovation Repair and
Painting firms

FY 2010
Target

100,000


FY 2010
Actual

59,143

FY2011
CR
Target

100,000


FY 2012
Target

140,000


Units

Firms

Measure
Type




Outcome



Measure
(10D) 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 2010
Target




28



FY 2010
Actual



Data
Avail
10/2012



FY2011
CR
Target




No Target
Established



FY 2012
Target




13



Units




Percent



Measure
Type



Efficiency



Measure
(10A) Annual
percentage of lead-
based paint
certification and refund
applications that
require less than 20
days of EPA effort to
process.
FY 2010
Target



92



FY 2010
Actual



96



FY2011
CR
Target



92



FY 2012
Target



95



Units



Percent



Nationally, lead-based paint exposure from deteriorated paint or renovation, repair and painting
activities is the single largest source of lead poisoning. EPA historically has tracked the number
of children aged one to five years with elevated blood lead levels (EBLL > or =  10 ug/dL).
Recent data indicate that the incidence among children of blood lead levels at 10 ug/dL or higher
                                          589

-------
has declined from approximately  1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in
2006.

Given the low number of children with blood lead levels at 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher
as reported in the 2010 CDC data, it is statistically impossible to continue to provide an estimate
of that number.   At the same time, results of recent studies indicate adverse health effects to
children  at blood levels lower than the CDC's recognized threshold of 10 micrograms per
deciliter.126 In response to this new information and the fact that the potential for exposure posed
by lead-based paint still exists in approximately 38 million homes built before 1978, EPA now is
targeting reductions in the number of children with  blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per
deciliter or higher.

In FY 2012, EPA will work towards reducing the percentage of children with blood lead levels
above 5  ug/dL to 1.5  percent.  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.

The Lead Program also tracks the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income children
and non-low-income children.  The program uses this performance measure to track progress
toward eliminating childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations.  EPA's long-term goal,
as reflected in the FY 2011-2015 draft Strategic Plan, is to close the gap between the geometric
mean blood lead levels among low income children versus non-low-income children, from a
baseline percentage difference of 43.6 percent (1999-2002) to a difference of 10 percent by FY
2015, with an interim target for FY 2012 of 13 percent.  According to the NHANES data, an
overall downward trend with some variation has been observed with recent data showing a
percent difference of 35.6 percent from 2003-2006 and 23.4 percent from 2005-2008.

In FY 2010, the Lead program introduced a  supporting output measure that tracks the number of
firms certified in Renovation,  Repair and Painting activities. This measure will not be subject to
the data lags of the biomonitoring measures described  above.    It will show  the  total
programmatic impact as the number of firms certified.  EPA's goal is to increase the number of
certified firms from zero in FY 2009 to 140,000 in FY 2012.

The  Lead program's  annual  efficiency  measure tracks improvements  in processing time for
certification  applications  for lead-based  paint professionals  and  for 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.  Since 2004, the percent of certification applications processed under
20 days has increased from 77 to 92  percent, with  most  recent progress in 2009  significantly
increasing to 97 percent. The  FY 2012 targets sustain this high level  of achievement.
126 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=l 58823
                                          590

-------
 FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$321.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-$121.0) This reflects a reduction as part  of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$2.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the  Computer  Security  Incident Response Center  from  across   programs  to  the
       Information Security program.

   •   (-$46.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort  to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$181.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million Agency-wide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and  Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

   •   (+$219.0) This reflects an  increase to improve EPA's  ability to implement the Lead
       Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule, which  took effect April 22, 2010, and to
       fulfill a federal court settlement agreement and an Agency response to a TSCA citizen's
       petition binding EPA to undertake  several additional Lead rulemaking actions.

   •   (-$187.07-1.2  FTE)    This reflects  redirection  of  FTE and  payroll  to  enhance
       implementation of Agency-wide top priorities, including safety of chemicals.

Statutory Authority:

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C.  2601 et seq. - Sections 401-412.
                                          591

-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                       592

-------
                                                                              LUST / UST
                                    Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                                                        Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                   Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land

                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$24,037.0
132.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$12,833.9
$17,901.7
$12,949.8
$4,951.9
$30,735.6
120.5
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$24,037.0
132.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$12,866.0
$11,982.0
$11,982.0
$0.0
$24,848.0
127.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$442.0
$369.0
$369.0
$0.0
$811.0
-5.0
Program Project Description:

EPA works with states, tribes, and intertribal consortia to prevent,  detect,  and clean up leaks
from federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum and hazardous
substances.  Potential adverse effects from the use of contaminants of concern such as benzene,
methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE), alcohols, or lead scavengers  in  gasoline underscore the
emphasis the Agency  and its state partners place  on promoting  compliance with  all UST
requirements, including the requirements described in the Energy Policy Act  (EPAct)127 of 2005.
In support of this goal, 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.128

FY 2012 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  installers.129  In  FY 2012,
EPA will continue to work to  bring all  UST  systems  into  compliance  and keep them in
compliance with  release detection and release prevention requirements. These activities include
assisting states in conducting inspections,  enforcing violations discovered during the inspections,
and assisting other federal agencies to improve their compliance at UST facilities.
127 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&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.
128 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/oust/ustsystm/index.htm
129 For more information on these and other activities please refer to http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact 05.htm.
                                            593

-------
In FY 2012,  EPA will continue to support core development and implementation of state and
tribal UST programs; strengthen the network of its federal, state and local partners, specifically
communities   and  vulnerable  populations;  and  provide  technical  assistance,  compliance
assistance, and training to promote and enforce UST facilities' compliance.  To more effectively
prevent releases from USTs, and  to fully  implement the  EPAct provisions, EPA  has been
working with its  state and tribal partners, the regulated  community,  and other interested
stakeholders to update EPA's regulations in FY 2010 and FY 2011. EPA expects to issue a final
regulation  in FY 2012 to ensure  full  implementation of the EPAct requirements.  EPA  will
provide training opportunities and assistance tools to better prepare  UST inspectors and better
inform UST owners.  EPA will explore the opportunities for financial assurance mechanisms to
create incentives for improved compliance by tank owners and operators.

EPA  has the primary responsibility to implement the UST Program in Indian country and to
maintain information on USTs located in Indian country.  EPA will  continue implementing the
FY 2006 UST tribal strategy130,  engaging and protecting  those most vulnerable,  including
developing regulatory requirements  for secondary containment,  delivery prohibition,  and
operator training in Indian country.  EPA also will continue to work to improve compliance rates
in Indian country.

The Agency  and states also will continue to use innovative compliance approaches, relying on
sound science and emerging technology, along with outreach  and education tools, to bring more
tanks into compliance  and to prevent releases.   EPA's  UST program  will  continue its
commitment  to scientific integrity through  support  for research on emerging issues, such as
alternative fuels.  To ensure an effective and safe transition to alternative fuels and to identify
potentially widespread and  avoidable environmental and  health impacts,  EPA will work with
states and tribes to assess and  ensure UST  compatibility  with alternative fuels.  This issue is
particularly important given EPA's approval of additional ethanol mixtures, such as El5 for use
in certain vehicles, which will result in certain petroleum retailers storing El5 and/or E85 in their
USTs.131 In FY 2012, EPA staff will continue to respond to the  increased use of biofuels by
providing  guidance  and  technical assistance  on  compatibility issues and  evaluating the
functionality  of leak detection equipment.  The EPA also will continue to  focus resources on
responding to the increased use of biofuels by assessing and ensuring biofuel compatibility, and
evaluating functionality of leak detection equipment.

Additionally, there are an unknown number of petroleum brownfields sites  (estimated to be at
least 200 thousand) that  are predominately  old  gas  stations  that blight the environmental and
economic health of surrounding neighborhoods.  The EPA Underground Storage Tanks program
and the EPA  Brownfields program jointly focus attention and resources on the cleanup  and reuse
of petroleum-contaminated sites.  In FY 2008, EPA developed a new plan of action to promote
reusing petroleum  brownfields.132  The plan  outlines EPA's  commitment to cleaning up
petroleum-contaminated sites and fostering their reuse. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to bolster
130 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/tribalst.htm
131 Ethanol fuel mixtures have "E" numbers which describe the percentage of ethanol in the mixture by volume, for example, E85
is 85% anhydrous ethanol and 15% gasoline.
is:
 l2 Petroleum Brownfields Action Plan, http://www.epa.gov/oust/pubs/petrobfactionplan.htm
                                           594

-------
communication and outreach to petroleum brownfields stakeholders; provide targeted technical
assistance to state, tribal,  and local governments;  evaluate policies  to  facilitate  increased
petroleum brownfields site revitalization; and continue to pursue corridor and Smart Growth
projects with the  states  to promote investment  in  and the sustainable reuse of petroleum
brownfields.   In FY 2012, EPA also will analyze tools that promote assessment, cleanup and
reuse of petroleum brownfields; disseminate a  petroleum brownfields  community workbook;
support the reuse of petroleum brownfields within the context of area wide considerations; and
continue cross-media and geographic multi-site petroleum brownfields projects.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks Program Project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$326.0)   This increase reflects the  recalculation of base  workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-2.0 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (+$340.0/ +2.5 FTE) This reflects an increase in  support for program activities focused
       on determining UST compatibility with  alternative fuels.  This includes 2.5 FTE and
       associated payroll of $328.0.

    •    (-$131.07  -1.0  FTE) This reflects a realignment of resources from  the  LUST/UST
        program to the Civil Enforcement and  Compliance  Monitoring programs to improve
        National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) data quality.  The reduced
        resources include 1.0 FTE and associated payroll of $131.0.

    •   (-$75.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
        initiative targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
        advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue it
        work to  redesign  processes  and  streamline activities in both  administrative  and
        programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$18.0) This  decrease in  travel  costs reflects an effort  to reduce the  Agency's travel
        footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act,  as amended by the Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.  6901 et seq. -
Section 8001 and Sections 9001  -9011.
                                          595

-------
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
              596

-------
                                         National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
                                                        Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
                                                        Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$32,567.0
$32,567.0
48.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$29, 796. 8
$29,796.8
44.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$32,567.0
$32,567.0
48.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$27,058.0
$27,058.0
47.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($5,509.0)
($5,509.0)
-0.7
Program Project Description:

The goal of the National Estuary/Coastal Waterway program is to restore the physical, chemical,
and biological integrity of estuaries of national significance and coastal watersheds by protecting
and restoring water quality and living resources.133  Major project efforts include:

   •   Aligning NEP/coastal waterways policy with the Executive Order on Stewardship of the
       Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes; integrating the NEP/coastal waterways program
       into federal agency implementation  of that Executive Order; maintaining and forming
       partnerships with other federal agencies with responsibility to implement that Executive
       Order;

   •   Supporting the 28 National Estuary  Programs (NEPs) continued implementation of
       Comprehensive  Conservation  and  Management  Plans   (CCMPs)  as  well  as
       implementation of Clean Water Act (CWA) core programs in their estuarine watersheds;

   •   Monitoring and assessing coastal water quality conditions, results of which are described
       in the National Coastal Condition Reports (NCCR);

   •   Continuing enhanced  monitoring  and  assessment  of Gulf of Mexico water quality,
       sediment,  and fish tissue conditions that began in FY  2010 following the Deepwater
       Horizon oil spill incident;

   •   Supporting enhancement of the NEPs capacity to develop and implement climate change
       adaptation strategies; and

   •   Addressing threats such as hypoxia  in the Gulf of Mexico in non-NEP estuary/coastal
       watersheds.
  See http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries for more information.
                                          597

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Estuarine and coastal waters  are among the most environmentally and economically valuable
natural resources in the nation. Resources in FY 2012 will support: (1) continued implementation
of the National Policy for the Stewardship of the  Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes (National
Ocean Policy134; (2) EPA's  goal  of protecting  estuaries of national  significance  and other
estuarine/coastal watersheds; and (3) protecting and restoring additional acres of habitat in NEP
study areas. This work will be undertaken in partnership with states, tribes, coastal communities
and other partners.

The National Estuary Program

In FY 2012, EPA will continue support of the National Estuary Program by providing $16.8
million in  CWA Section 320 grants for the 28 NEP's ($600 thousand per NEP).  Continued
support of this flagship watershed protection program will help address continuing and emerging
threats  to  the  nation's  estuarine  resources.135 EPA  will  continue support of  NEP  CCMP
implementation as well  as  implementation  of CWA core programs.    Specifically,  EPA's
activities include:

    •   Supporting the 28 NEP  continued efforts to exercise local and regional leadership by
       targeting protection and restoration of estuarine resources and promoting environmental
       sustainability, including sustainable land practices, through CCMP implementation. EPA
       oversight of NEP CCMP implementation  includes  the  ongoing review of the  NEPs'
       environmental programs, projects, and results, and  of the NEP leveraging of partner
       resources; and

    •   Supporting efforts to achieve EPA's goal of protecting and restoring 100,000 additional
       acres of habitat in FY 2012, and promoting alignment  of NEP  restoration goals with
       those of federal, tribal, state, regional, and local agencies.

The effects of climate change,  such as rising  sea levels,  changes in  precipitation patterns,
increases  in intensity  of  and   damage from storms,  and  changes  in commercially-  and
ecologically-significant species'  distribution, as well as the  impacts of coastal development, are
a growing  concern in U.S. coastal  watersheds.  EPA will continue working with our NEP and
non-NEP  partners to identify, develop, and promote strategies aimed  at: (1)  improving  the
resilience  of coastal  watershed  communities  and ecosystems,  and  (2) enhancing those
communities' capacity to adapt to emerging climate change impacts.

The program will continue implementing its enhanced NEP  data reporting and tracking system.
The system tracks progress in  NEP  efforts to meet ambitious annual  and long-term  habitat
protection and restoration targets.
134 http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans
135 The means and strategies outlined under the Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters sub-objective must be viewed in tandem with
the means and strategies outlined for achieving the Increase Wetlands sub-objective. The Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters
sub-objective contains strategic measures for ocean and coastal programs that are integral to the Agency's efforts to facilitate the
ecosystem-scale protection and restoration of natural areas.


                                            598

-------
Coastal Monitoring and Assessment

In FY 2012, the program will lead the effort to strengthen knowledge of our coasts and oceans by
monitoring and  assessing the nation's  coastal waters.   Along with  federal,  state, and local
partners, EPA will continue to track and report on coastal waters' health and  progress toward
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 that covers both national and regional scales.  The
NCCR includes indices  covering coastal water quality, sediment quality, benthic condition,
coastal  habitat,  and fish  tissue contamination. The fourth NCCR,  based largely  on EPA's
Research  and Development National Coastal Assessment's (NCA) data from 2003-2006,  is
expected to be released in FY 2012.

Information on coastal ecological conditions 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 2012, 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. A key goal is to  improve
       water quality in the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico by implementing
       sustainable land use practices.  One important  action involves federal  approaches that
       provide a framework for state nutrient strategies.  EPA's role in this action will include
       the identification of strategies, as well as the 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 2012 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, coordinating Mississippi
       River-Atchafalaya  River  Basin monitoring  activities,  and  enhancing  research and
       modeling to identify  the highest opportunity  watersheds  for nutrient  reductions.
       Resources in this program are particularly focused on support for the Gulf Hypoxia Task
       Force, and complement other coordination and implementation supplement resources in
       the Geographic program: Mississippi River Basin, Geographic Program:  Gulf of Mexico,
       and Surface Water Protection Program.
                                           599

-------
   •   Large  Aquatic Ecosystems:  EPA  will  foster  collaboration among  the  Agency's
       ecosystem-based efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and national
       water programs with the goal of improving  the health of the nation's large  aquatic
       ecosystems and strengthening links among these programs and to the national water
       programs.  These coordination activities complement resources in other program projects
       for individual ecosystems (e.g. Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, and San
       Francisco Bay).

   •   Climate Ready Estuaries: EPA  will continue to strengthen the capacity of NEPs and
       other coastal watershed entities to lead coastal communities' adaptation to the impacts of
       climate change.  The Agency will provide technical assistance to the NEPs as they: (1)
       develop and  implement  "Climate-Ready  Estuary"  models  assessing   watersheds'
       vulnerabilities  to climate  change;  (2) develop  and  implement  climate  adaptation
       strategies;  (3)  engage and educate stakeholders about  climate change impacts in their
       coastal areas; and (4) share lessons learned with other coastal managers.  The Agency
       also  will help promote increased resilience  among NEPs  and enhance  the  climate
       adaptation  capacity  of NEPs  and  other coastal  watershed  communities through
       partnerships with other federal agencies.  The partnerships will provide tools, training,
       and scientific expertise to communities working to build their capacity to  prepare for and
       manage climate change impacts.

Further, EPA will support implementation of the July  19, 2010 Executive Order  that establishes
the first comprehensive national policy  for stewardship of the ocean, our coasts and the Great
Lakes. The Executive Order strengthens ocean governance and coordination, establishes guiding
principles for ocean management,  and  adopts  a  flexible framework for effective coastal and
marine spatial planning.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(202) Acres protected
or restored in National
Estuary Program study
areas.

FY 2010
Target

100,000


FY 2010
Actual

89,985

FY2011
CR
Target

100,000


FY 2012
Target

100,000


Units

Acres

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$196.7) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$100.0) This decrease reflects a programmatic effort to use more web- and electronic-
       based tools and material for public outreach and communication.

    •   (-$175.0) This decrease reflects a  redirection of resources from the Coastal America
       program  to the Wetlands  Protection Program  to  support clarifying  the definition of
                                          600

-------
       "Waters of the U.S." It is critical to establish sound policy relating to the definition of
       Waters of the U.S., including potential rulemaking.

    •   (-$1.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several agencywide IT projects such as
       email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization,  and others
       totaling $10 million agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

    •   (-$5,600.0) This reduces Congress!onally-directed funding in FY 2010  for the Clean
       Water Act Section 320 grants.

    •   (+$276.0) This reflects an increase to support for protecting and enhancing water quality
       and living resources in estuaries and coastal watersheds.

    •   (-$261.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas.

    •   (+$155.3 /  +1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce  management strategy that
       will help the agency better align resources, skills and agency priorities. These resources
       are  shifting to  support the National Estuary  Program.  This includes +1.0 FTE and
       +$155.3 in associated payroll.

    •   (-1.7 FTE)  This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs  to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

1990  Great Lakes  Critical Programs Act; 2002  Great Lakes  and Lake Champlain Act; Clean
Water Act  (CWA); Estuaries and Clean  Waters Act of 2000; Protection and Restoration Act of
1990; North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA); Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 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.
                                           601

-------
                                                                               Wetlands
                                                        Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$25,940.0
$25,940.0
159.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$27,130.2
$27,130.2
155.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$25,940.0
$25,940.0
159.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$27,368.0
$27,368.0
160.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,428.0
$1,428.0
1.3
Program Project Description:

Wetlands improve water quality, recharge water supplies, reduce flood risks, provide fish and
wildlife habitat,  and  support  valuable  recreational  and  commercial  fishing and shellfish
industries.  EPA's Wetlands Protection Program relies on partnerships with other programs
within EPA  and with  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 consistent and effective national approach
to wetlands protection.

EPA's Wetlands Program operates under the national goal of "no net loss" of wetlands under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 regulatory program. Major activities of the Wetlands
Protection Program include development and dissemination  of rules, guidance, information and
scientific tools to improve management and public understanding of wetland programs and legal
requirements, and management of financial assistance to states and tribes to support development
of strong wetland protection programs.

Beginning in FY 2009, the EPA significantly enhanced collaboration with the Department of the
Interior (DOT)  and the Army Corps  of Engineers  (Corps) to implement a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to reduce the harmful environmental  effects of Appalachian surface coal
mining operations. EPA works with the Corps to implement  the provisions of Section 404 of the
CWA to protect wetlands and other waters of the U.S. EPA  also works in partnership with non-
governmental organizations and state, tribal, and local agencies to conserve and restore wetlands
and  other  waters through  watershed planning approaches, voluntary and  incentive-based
programs, improved scientific methods, information and education, and building the capacity of
state and local programs.136
136
  See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ or http://www.cfda.gov for more information.
                                          602

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will work with its state and tribal partners to strengthen their wetland programs
in the  areas of monitoring and  assessment,  voluntary restoration and protection, regulatory
programs (including CWA 401 certification), and wetland water quality standards. The Agency
will assist states and tribes to develop and implement broad-based and integrated monitoring and
assessment  programs that  improve  wetland data  for decision-making  on wetlands  within
watersheds,  address significant stressors, report  on conditions, and geo-locate wetlands  on the
landscape.   In support  of state and tribal wetland programs, EPA will continue to administer
Wetland Program Development grants, with a strengthened focus in FY 2012 on working more
efficiently with  states  and tribes to develop aspects of their programs  to achieve program
development outcomes, and providing targeted technical assistance to states and tribes.  EPA is
encouraging states and tribes to prepare wetland program plans to focus EPA's capacity-building
activities.

The National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) is one of a series of National Aquatic
Resource Surveys (NARS) that are  designed to assess the condition of our nation's waters while
advancing state capacity to monitor and assess aquatic resources.   Development of the NWCA
builds  on the accomplishments  of the  U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  Service  (USFWS)  and their
production of national reports on status and trends in wetland acreage. When taken together, the
NWCA and the USFWS Wetland Status and Trends results will, over time, be used to measure
progress toward attainment of the national  goal  to increase the  quantity and quality  of the
nation's wetlands.  In FY 2011, states, tribes, and other partners will be sampling 900 randomly
selected  and 100 targeted reference sites for an array of biotic and abiotic indicators.   In FY
2012, EPA  will compile and organize  raw data, conduct laboratory analyses,  and implement
quality  assurance procedures.  The  Agency also will initiate  the data  analysis process  by
assembling a team of experts from EPA, states, tribes, academia, and other federal agencies. The
National Wetland Condition Assessment will  be published in 2013 and will represent the first
ever statistically valid survey of national wetland condition.

EPA will continue to implement the  Memorandum  of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency
Action Plan (LAP) that was signed with the Department of Interior and the Department of the
Army on June 11, 2009, to  significantly reduce the harmful effects of Appalachian surface coal
mining  operations.137 Coordinating with the Corps, states, resource agencies, and the public,
EPA will review CWA Section 404 permits of concern and negotiate resolution to outstanding
environmental issues with the Corps and mine operators. In addition, the Agency will work with
federal partners to develop guidelines for compensatory mitigation for stream impacts. Based on
its  review in 2010  of existing regulatory authorities  and procedures, EPA will improve
interagency  coordination and collaboration and  strengthen  watershed-scale and cumulative
impact assessment of proposed surface  coal mines. More rigorous analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  and  Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 also will
be important to reduce environmental impacts of surface coal mining projects.

The Agency, working with the Corps and  other partners,  will implement  the joint Corps-EPA
Compensatory Mitigation Rule finalized in FY 2008, which  was designed to: (1) improve the
 '(http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Final MTM MOU 6-ll-09.pdf).


                                          603

-------
effectiveness of compensatory mitigation to replace lost aquatic resource functions and area; (2)
expand public participation in compensatory mitigation decision making;  and (3) increase the
efficiency and predictability of the mitigation project review process.  EPA's support will help
avoid or minimize aquatic resource losses and provide for full compensation for unavoidable
losses of functions through restoration and enhancement, using a watershed approach and tools
such as mitigation banking.  Greater emphasis will be placed on assessment and monitoring of
aquatic resource function, developing functionally based crediting and debiting protocols, and
achieving ecological performance standards at compensation sites.  EPA will continue to focus
on wetland and stream corridor restoration to regain lost aquatic resources. In addition, EPA and
the Corps will  provide technical trainings on the requirements of the rule and implementation
approaches in targeted regions, in addition to providing our annual training course on mitigation
banking and in-lieu fee programs for interagency review teams.

Another key activity that EPA will be implementing in FY 2012 is the 2006 decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Rapanos  and Carabell cases.  The decision in Rapanos resulted in  an
increased demand on EPA and the Corps 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 have increased the amount of training needed for EPA and Corps field staff and
the frequency of interagency analysis and coordination, including site visits. EPA, in partnership
with the Corps, is fully exploring administrative opportunities to optimally address current
jurisdictional challenges. As part of its review of non-regulatory activities, some small incentive
programs will be eliminated in FY 2012 to increase support for other statutory requirements.

Although wetland acreage is increasing nationally, wetlands in  coastal watersheds are declining.
Reports by the USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s
National Marine Fisheries Service found that coastal wetlands in the Eastern U.S. are decreasing
by 59,000  acres per year (Status and Trends  of Wetlands  in the Coastal  Watersheds of the
Eastern United States 1998  to  2004,  available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands).   This is a
concern since wetlands are nurseries for many fish and shellfish of commercial and recreational
importance  and play key roles  as storm buffers and floodwater storage.  EPA leads  an
Interagency collaboration with other federal  agencies including USFWS, NOAA, the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Geological  Survey (USGS), the Corps,
and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to better  understand  the  factors contributing to
wetland losses and identify actions that could reduce or reverse trends in coastal wetland loss. In
FY 2012, EPA anticipates optimal use of each agency's existing wetland program resources and
authorities to improve coastal wetland resource protection and restoration in several target areas.
The Gulf of Mexico also will remain an area of emphasis  and  attention, in light of documented
wetland losses and the additional impacts from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

EPA will  work with our federal partners to accelerate the completion of the digital Wetlands
Data Layer in the National Spatial Data Inventory (NSDI). This baseline data 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 and other stressors.
                                           604

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(4E) 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 2010
Target



No Net
Loss



FY 2010
Actual



No net
loss



FY2011
CR
Target



No Net
Loss



FY 2012
Target



No Net
Loss



Units



Acres




Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(4G) Number of acres
restored and improved,
under the 5 -Star, NEP,
319, and great
waterbody programs
(cumulative).

FY 2010
Target


110,000



FY 2010
Actual


130,000


FY2011
CR
Target


150,000



FY 2012
Target


170,000



Units


Acres


FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$158.9) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-3.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$94.0) This reflects a redirection from the NEP/Coastal Waterways program to support
       efforts to clarify the definition of "Waters of the U.S."  This shift is a result of the
       Agency's review of non-regulatory activities.

   •   (-$100.0) This reflects a reduction in funding for state/tribal technical assistance, cease
       EPA's lead agency role in National Wetlands Awards Programs and reduce support for
       American Wetlands Month activities/products.   This shift is a result of the  agency's
       review of non-regulatory activities.

   •   (+$6.0.) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area
       Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

   •   (+$1,644.9 /  +4.9 FTE) This  reflects an  increase to support implementation of the
       Appalachian  Coal  Mining Interagency Action Plan by providing additional Section 404
                                          605

-------
       permit reviewers and  issuing  guidance to implement plan  recommendations.  This
       includes +4.9 FTE and $620.9 in associated payroll.

   •   (-$123.0) This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for  efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (+$65.0) This reflects an increase in travel.

Statutory Authority:

1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water
Act (CWA);  Coastal Wetlands  Planning, Restoration and Restoration Act of 2002 (CWPPR);
Estuaries  and Clean Waters  Act  of 2000;  North  American Wetlands  Conservation Act
(NAWCA); Wetlands  Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909  The Boundary Waters
Treaty; Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (GLWQA);  1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997
Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
                                          606

-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                    607

-------
                                                                   Beach / Fish Programs
                                             Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                                                          Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                                         Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,944.0
$2,944.0
7.7
FY 2010
Actuals
$2,981.4
$2,981.4
7.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$2,944.0
$2,944.0
7.7
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$2,708.0
$2,708.0
7.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($236.0)
($236.0)
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.

Beach Program:

The Beach Program protects  human health by reducing exposure in  coastal  and Great Lakes
recreational waters to  fecal pathogens  or pathogen indicators.   Agency activities include:  1)
issuing guidance to improve state 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 notifying 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
monitoring and notification activities.
138
Fish Contamination Program:

The Fish Contamination Program includes fish advisories and fish tissue contamination studies.
The fish  advisory  program  provides  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 with contaminants at levels of concern.  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
 ' See http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/beaches/ for more information.
                                           608

-------
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 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 inform 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) issued  a joint advisory  concerning eating fish  and shellfish.
Mercury contamination of fish and shellfish occurs locally as well as in ocean-caught fish.  At
higher levels, it causes  adverse  health effects,  especially  in  developing fetuses and young
children.

The  fish tissue contaminant studies  sample  and analyze   fish  tissue in different types  of
waterbodies -  in fish caught and consumed by  recreational and  subsistence fishers -  for
chemicals that  are of concern for human  health.  The program  tracks the  concentrations  of
persistent, bio-accumulative, and  toxic compounds (PBTs) that are known to be present in U.S.
waters.  The studies also are a surveillance tool for detecting contaminants of emerging concern
(CECs), such as Pharmaceuticals, polybrominated dipehnyl ethers (PBDE)s,  and perfluorinated
compounds (PFC). Agency activities include:  1) designing  and implementing independent or
collaborative  statistically-representative human health fish tissue studies; 2) analyzing data and
preparing reports; and 3) disseminating reports and data that help to inform the public (especially
recreational  and subsistence  fishers)  and the states, where states  might decide to  conduct
additional monitoring to determine if fish have contamination levels that warrant issuing a fish
consumption advisory.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will pursue the following:

Beach Program:

States and territories monitored 3,819 beaches in FY 2009.  To  continue making  progress on
improving beach monitoring and notification in FY 2012, EPA expects to:

   •   Make grant funds available to all 35 eligible states and territories, as well as all eligible
       tribes, to monitor beach water  quality and to  notify the public of beach advisories and
       closings;

   •   Oversee beach program implementation and grant expenditures;

   •   Fully  implement improvements to the eBeaches  information management system that
       will make it easier for states to submit monitoring and notification data and enable EPA
       to provide this information to the public in  a  more timely manner, including an annual
       report;
                                          609

-------
    •   Continue to work with coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to address
       monitoring issues; and

    •   Continue to work with states, territories, and tribes to obtain input on implementation
       issues associated with new recreational  water quality criteria, which will be issued in
       October 2012, to ensure a smooth transition in the use of the new criteria in the beach
       monitoring and notification program.

Fish Contamination Program:

    •   Continue to address total blood mercury concentrations through ongoing work with the
       FDA on joint guidance issued to the public, and encourage and  support the states'
       implementation of their fish advisory programs through such measures as convening the
       National Forum on Contaminants in Fish and publishing the biennial National Listing of
       Fish Advisories;

    •   Continue to 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 update science and public policy to assess and manage the risks and benefits
       of fish consumption, including updating national guidance for assessing the safety of
       consuming recreationally and  subsistence caught  seafood, and tracking blood mercury
       levels in women of childbearing age in an effort to assess the effectiveness of the national
       mercury advisory;

    •   Continue to provide technical support to states  in the operation of their monitoring
       programs, determining acceptable levels of contaminant concentrations, and development
       and management offish advisories;

    •   Continue to work with FDA to investigate the extent and risks of contaminants in fish,
       including the potential need for advisories for other pollutants;

    •   Develop a report on the urban river study of pharmaceuticals, PFCs, and  musks in fish
       tissue as part of EPA's National Rivers and Streams Assessment.  The Agency anticipates
       completing this activity by September 2012; and

    •   Develop a database  and  perform  statistical  analyses for the human health study of
       mercury, Omega-3 fatty acids, PFCs, pharmaceuticals, and  PBDEs in  fish tissue in the
       Great Lakes as part  of EPA's National Coastal  Assessment.  The  Agency anticipates
       completing this activity by September 2012.
                                           610

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(fsl) Percent of women
of childbearing age
having mercury levels
in blood above the
level of concern.
FY 2010
Target
5.1
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
3/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
4.9
FY 2012
Target
4.9
Units
Percent
Women
Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(ssl) 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 2010
Target




2




FY 2010
Actual



Data
Avail
3/2011



FY2011
CR
Target




2




FY 2012
Target




2




Units




Outbreaks




Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(ss2) 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 2010
Target



95



FY 2010
Actual



95



FY2011
CR
Target



95



FY 2012
Target



95



Units



Percent
Days/Season



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$13.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-$147.0) This decrease reflects a shift from non-regulatory to regulatory work. EPA will
       no longer sponsor an annual beach conference. Instead, it will shift resources to help fund
       one of the Agency's highest priorities  - addressing excessive nutrients in the nation's
       waters.
                                          611

-------
   •   (-$102.0) This reflects a reduction as  part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets  certain categories of spending  for  efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act (CWA); Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act
of 2000.  33 USC 1313.
                                           612

-------
                                                                Drinking Water Programs
                                              Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
                                                          Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                                         Objective(s): Protect Human Health
                                   (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$102,224.0
$3,637.0
$105,861.0
589.4
FY 2010
Actuals
$99,394.2
$3,889.3
$103,283.5
598.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$102,224.0
$3,637.0
$105,861.0
589.4
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$104,616.0
$3,787.0
$108,403.0
585.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,392.0
$150.0
$2,542.0
-4.1
Program Project Description:

EPA's Drinking  Water Program is based  on the multiple-barrier approach to protect  public
health from unsafe drinking water.  Under this approach, EPA protects public health through: (1)
source water assessment and  protection  programs;  (2)  promulgation  of new  or revised,
scientifically sound National Primary  Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs);  (3) training,
technical assistance, and financial assistance programs to enhance public water systems' capacity
to comply  with existing and new regulations; (4) underground injection control programs; (5)
and  the  implementation  of NPDWRs by  state and tribal  drinking water programs through
regulatory, non-regulatory, and voluntary programs and policies to ensure safe drinking water.1 9

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Safe drinking water is critical to protecting human health.  More than 290 million Americans rely
on the safety of tap water provided by public water systems that are subject to national drinking
water standards.14   In FY 2012, EPA  will continue to protect  sources of drinking water from
contamination by:  (1)  developing new  and revising  existing  drinking  water standards;  (2)
supporting states, tribes, and water systems in implementing standards; (3) promoting sustainable
management of drinking water infrastructure; and (4) implementing the underground injection
control program.  For FY 2012, the Agency's goal is that 91 percent of the population served by
community water systems will receive drinking water that  meets all applicable  health-based
standards.

As part of the Administrator's priority to protect America's waters, the Agency will continue to
implement the Drinking Water Strategy in FY 2012.141  The Strategy is EPA's new approach to
expand public health protection for drinking water.  In  FY 2012, the Agency will use the input
provided by stakeholders in FY 2010 and FY 2011 to identify better ways to:
139 See http://www.epa.gov/safewater and https://wwwcfda.gov for more information.
140 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/index.cfm.
141 See http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm for additional information.
                                            613

-------
   •   Address contaminants in groups;

   •   Spur innovations in drinking water technology;

   •   Leverage authorities of other environmental  statutes to protect  drinking water where
       appropriate; and

   •   Work with partners to share more data from public water system (PWS) monitoring.

A central component of the Strategy is to strengthen our state and tribal partnerships by sharing
better information on the water quality in public water systems.  Building stronger partnerships
will improve how states, tribes, and EPA share information, allow more rigorous oversight of the
drinking water program to improve public health, and enable consumers to gain greater
confidence in water quality in their own systems. EPA's water program will work with states
and tribes and pursue data system upgrades necessary to obtain all compliance monitoring data
submitted by PWSs to states rather than only violation data.

Drinking Water Implementation

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to work with states to implement requirements for risk-
based rules to ensure  that systems  install  appropriate levels  of treatment.   These include
provisions to protect against Cryptosporidium (Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule  or "LT2"),  to  control disinfection byproducts (Stage  2 Disinfectants and  Disinfection
Byproducts Rule or "Stage 2"), and to ensure quality water from groundwater sources (Ground
Water Rule). EPA will assist states in implementing public water system health requirements for
high-priority drinking water contaminants, including those covered under the Arsenic Rule and
revised Lead and Copper Rule.  By FY 2012, most water systems should be in compliance or on
schedule to install treatment or develop alternative solutions to reduce their arsenic levels below
the standard.

A number  of small water  systems have difficulties  developing a path  to compliance  due to
funding or technical limitations. EPA will implement its  small systems approach to help these
systems. EPA and the states will continue extensive  and detailed oversight of the  Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The Agency will continue to work with the states to
improve their capacity development programs to  ensure effective and ongoing compliance with
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).  EPA will coordinate with the United States Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service Funding Program to target funding and promote
system sustainability.  EPA also will further promote  water system partnerships initiated by
states, including voluntary restructuring of unsustainable water  systems.   Finally,  EPA, in
concert with the states, will continue to focus on rule compliance and system sustainability.

As part of the Drinking Water Strategy and  the agency-wide "Regaining Ground: Increasing
Compliance in Critical Areas," EPA will invest an additional $1.2  million for its Safe Drinking
Water Information System  (SDWIS).   This funding  will be  used to replace obsolete  and
expensive-to-maintain drinking water information system technology and will:
                                          614

-------
    •   Reduce EPA's total cost of ownership;

    •   Enable faster  implementation  of drinking water rules and  provide tools  to ensure
       consistent determinations for compliance with drinking water rules; and

    •   Support efficient sharing of drinking water compliance monitoring data between states
       and EPA.

The increase  also will enable EPA to  develop the capability to post more drinking water
compliance monitoring data on the Internet.  This will instill  confidence that America's drinking
water meets  stringent EPA standards  and is safe for  public  consumption.   In addition, the
investment will allow for better targeting of federal  and state funding and technical assistance
resources, improve data quality, and support statutorily required reviews of existing regulations.
Specifically, EPA will be able to review data related to existing drinking water regulations with
reduced burden on its regulatory partners.

EPA  will  use the  increased  funding  in concert with  the  states to collect and  display  all
compliance monitoring  data as part of implementing the Drinking Water  Strategy.   This will
improve transparency and efficient data management operations. Also, an increase in resources,
under the  Public Water System Supervision Grant Program (PWSS), is being requested to
support improvements in state drinking water data management, data quality, and compliance
monitoring data collection and transfer. EPA will fund the state share of the joint effort with the
State  and Tribal Assistance Grants appropriation.  Specific  activities associated with the state
funding are described in the PWSS state grant narrative of the budget.

EPA also will continue the following activities in order to facilitate compliance with rules:

  •  Continue to direct national Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program efforts by
     establishing priorities, developing guidance, measuring program results,  and administering
     the PWSS Grants;

  •  Continue direct implementation of the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, which will affect 63
     airlines and  over 7,000 aircraft;

  •  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,  revised Lead  and  Copper Rule,  and Total Coliform
     Rule, as well as on simultaneous  compliance issues. Monitoring under the Ground Water
     Rule  began in FY 2010.   EPA will promote best practices  related  to  operation  and
     maintenance of  small systems in support of long-term compliance success with existing
     regulations;
                                           615

-------
  •  Provide training  and technical assistance  to  states  and to water systems  that need  to
     increase their treatment to comply with Stage 2 and LT2.   Compliance with new health
     based standards will begin in 2012 for the first group of systems (largest systems); and

  •  Support states in their  efforts to assist small systems  in  attaining and  maintaining the
     technical,  managerial, and financial 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 radionuclide rules and rules controlling microbial pathogens  and disinfection
     byproducts.

Drinking Water Standards

As part of the Drinking Water Strategy, the Agency will focus on regulating groups of drinking
water contaminants to more effectively address potential risks.  In addition, EPA will expand  its
communication with states, tribes, and communities thereby improving confidence  in the quality
of drinking water.

The Agency will continue to assess the available information  on health  effects and occurrence
data in  drinking water to determine which Contaminant Candidate List  (CCL  3)  contaminants
have sufficient information to make a determination whether or not to regulate the contaminant
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA will make such preliminary determinations for at least
five CCL 3 contaminants by 2012.   The Agency also will continue to evaluate and  address
drinking water risks though other activities to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
including:

  •  Publishing the final revised Total Coliform Rule in 2012;

  •  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;

  •  Continuing to evaluate the long-term issues identified in the national review of the revised
     Lead and Copper Rule;

  •  Proposing a rule to regulate perchlorate in drinking water;

  •  Proposing  a regulation to address 16 volatile organic compounds as part of the Drinking
     Water Strategy; and

  •  Collaborating with stakeholders to better understand  water quality issues in distribution
     systems.

Sustainable Infrastructure and Effective Utility Management

With the aging of the nation's  infrastructure  and a growing need for investment, the drinking
water  and wastewater sectors face a   significant challenge  to  sustain  and  advance the
                                           616

-------
achievements  attained in protecting  public health and  the  environment.  EPA's sustainable
infrastructure efforts are designed to  promote more effective management of water utilities in
order to continuously improve their performance and achieve long-term  sustainability in their
infrastructure, operations and other facets of their business.

EPA  will continue to  encourage drinking water utilities to  be sustainable through successful
business practices by providing funding and technical assistance including the following:

  •   Providing states with funds, through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
      capitalization grants, for low-interest loans to  assist utilities with financing drinking water
      infrastructure needs. In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work in concert with the states to
      ensure federal financial assistance supports utility compliance with  SDWA standards and
      achieves public health protection objectives of SDWA.  EPA also will work with utilities to
      promote technical,  financial,  and  managerial  capacity  as a  critical   means  to meet
      infrastructure needs, to further enhance program performance and efficiency, and to ensure
      compliance;

  •   Continuing to provide effective oversight of the DWSRF funds;

  •   Partnering with states and utility associations as part of the Agency's  Clean Water and Safe
      Drinking  Water  Infrastructure  Sustainability Policy to  promote system-wide  planning
      processes to  help ensure that projects are environmentally and  financially sustainable, as
      well as collaborative and partnership relationships between more capable  and less capable
      utilities where appropriate;

  •   Continuing to partner with states to leverage  capacity development  programs to  facilitate
      the voluntary adoption  of sustainable practices by  drinking water utilities including asset
      management and source water protection approaches to manage water resources; and

  •   Continuing to  work  with states, other  agencies,  and stakeholders to  address  operator
      workforce issues,  to promote water and energy efficiency, and to identify options  for
      utilities in response to climate change impacts and water resource limitations.

Additionally, in FY 2012, the Agency will analyze data  collected  in 2011 for the required fifth
Needs Survey and begin drafting the  survey report for publishing in 2013.  The survey reports
infrastructure  needs that are required to protect  public health, such as projects to ensure
compliance  with the Safe  Drinking Water Act  (SDWA).  The survey will document 20-year
capital investment needs of public water systems that  are eligible  to receive DWSRF monies -
approximately 53,000 community water systems  and 21,400 not-for-profit non-community water
systems.  EPA also will obtain data concerning the drinking water infrastructure needs of tribes
and Alaskan Native Villages as a special focus of this  survey. As directed by the SDWA, EPA
will use the results of the survey to allocate DWSRF funds to the  states and tribes beginning in
FY2014.
                                           617

-------
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 effort because source water protection can reduce the need for additional drinking
water treatment and the associated additional cost, infrastructure, and energy usage. In FY 2012,
the Agency will:

  •  Continue to work to promote source water protection for better management of sources of
     contamination (e.g. nutrients, septic systems) 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 watershed level connections of state and
     local level source water protection actions;

  •  Continue working with states  and other stakeholders to characterize current  and future
     pressures  on  water availability, variability  and  sustainability (WAYS),  including the
     potential effects of climate change.

Underground Injection Control (UIC)

The UIC program safeguards current and  future drinking water from the underground injection
of contaminants. The UIC program regulates the construction, operation, permitting, and closure
of injection wells that place fluids underground for storage or disposal.  In FY 2012, the Agency
will:

   •   Work to meet emerging permitting  demands:
           o  Injection   of  uranium solution mining  fluids  and  produced  water  disposal
              associated with energy exploration activities; and
           o  Injection of fluids  for aquifer storage and recovery, stormwater, and desalination
              associated with water supply needs.

   •   Implement the new Class VI Geologic Sequestration (GS) rulemaking:
           o  Continue work on guidance documents and implementation materials for the  rule;
           o  Review and approve primacy applications from states and tribes;
           o  Initiate development of a data management system to support evaluation of GS
              permit and project  data  and inform  modifications  to the GS program,  if
              appropriate; and
           o  Provide technical assistance to states to analyze complex modeling, monitoring,
              siting, and financial assurance data for new GS projects;

   •   Continue  to direct national  UIC  program  efforts to  protect underground sources of
       drinking  water (USDW)  by  establishing  priorities,  developing guidance,  measuring
       program results, administering the UIC Grants; and
                                           618

-------
       Continue activities to work with the states to fully populate the UIC database, targeted to
       include 68 UIC programs and 500,000 wells by 2012. EPA will support mapping of each
       state's data for initial  submissions and transition from paper reporting to  electronic
       reporting for states that pass quality assurance/quality control parameters.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type





Outcome



Measure
(E) 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
FY 2010
Target





87



FY 2010
Actual





87.2



FY2011
CR
Target





87



FY 2012
Target





87



Units




Percent
Population



Measure
Type





Outcome




Measure
(aa) Percent of
population served by
CWSs that will receive
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based drinking
water standards
through approaches
including effective
treatment & source
water protection.
FY 2010
Target





90




FY 2010
Actual





92




FY2011
CR
Target





91




FY 2012
Target





91




Units




Pprppnt
A wlv/wllL
Population




Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(aph) Percent of
community water
systems that have
undergone a sanitary
survey within the past
three years (five years
for outstanding
performance.)
FY 2010
Target



95



FY 2010
Actual



87



FY2011
CR
Target



95



FY 2012
Target



95



Units



Percent
CWSs



                                           619

-------
Measure
Type




Outcome



Measure
(apm) Percent of
community water
systems that meet all
applicable health-based
standards through
approaches that include
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2010
Target




90



FY 2010
Actual




89.6



FY2011
CR
Target




90



FY 2012
Target




90



Units




Systems



Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(dw2) Percent of
person months during
which community
water systems provide
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based standards.
FY 2010
Target



95



FY 2010
Actual



97.3



FY2011
CR
Target



95



FY 2012
Target



95



Units



Months



Work under this program supports the Agency's High Priority Performance Goal (Priority Goal),
addressing water quality. A list of the Agency's Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A. For
a detailed description of the EPA's Priority Goals (implementation strategy, measures and
milestones) please visit www.Performance.gov.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$992.0) This increase reflects  the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$1,200.0) This increase  supports  the  agency-wide "Regaining Ground: Increasing
       Compliance in Critical Areas" investment which will expand  the Safe Drinking Water
       Information System  (SDWIS) to improve compliance  monitoring and data flow and
       quality.  Improvements to  SDWIS  will  provide the  necessary  accountability  and
       transparency controls to deliver  timely information to the public  and instill greater
       confidence that American drinking water meets stringent EPA standards and is safe for
       public consumption.

    •   (-$119.0) This decrease in  travel  costs reflects an effort to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (+$200.0) This reflects realignments  and corrections to resources for telephones, Local
       Area Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.
                                          620

-------
   •   (+$1,101.0) This increase will  enable EPA to work with the states to implement UIC
       regulations for Geologic Sequestration  (GS) of carbon dioxide including: completing
       guidance, training permit writers, and providing communication and outreach as part of
       the Clean Energy and Climate Change Initiative.

   •   (-$982.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative  targets  certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing  and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-3.8 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (-0.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
       Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A; CWA.
                                           621

-------
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
                  622

-------
                                                                        Marine Pollution
                                                    Program Area: Water Quality Protection
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$13,397.0
$13,397.0
44.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$9,783.7
$9,783.7
41.5
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$13,397.0
$13,397.0
44.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$13,417.0
$13,417.0
43.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$20.0
$20.0
-1.1
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 marine issues,  such  as marine debris,  invasive  species,  and  the  marine
transportation system.  EPA works to integrate its management of the oceans and coasts across
federal agencies and with state, tribal, and local governments.142

Major areas of effort include:

   •   Developing and implementing regulations and technical guidance to control  pollutants
       from  vessel operational  discharges  and  point-source ocean discharges, 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;

   •   Participating with other federal agencies (including: U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps
       of Engineers, Department of State, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and
       Atmospheric Administration, and  Navy) in international marine protection programs, to
       develop international standards that address vessel-related transport of aquatic invasive
       species, harmful antifoulants, operational discharges from vessels, dumping of wastes at
       sea, and marine debris. EPA is Head of the U.S. Delegation for the London Convention /
       London Protocol (LC / LP) Scientific Group, Alternate Head of the U.S. Delegation for
       the LC / LP Consultative Meeting of the Parties, and a member of the U.S. Delegation to
       the Marine Environmental Protection Committee;
 • See http://water.epa. gov/aboutow/owow/programs/index, cfm for more information.
                                           623

-------
    •   Increasing our knowledge of the oceans and coasts by operating the Ocean Survey Vessel
       (OSV) Bold to  monitor ocean  and coastal waters.  This  includes  supporting ocean
       disposal site management  and conducting baseline and trend assessments (e.g., Gulf of
       Mexico hypoxic zone, climate change indicators, and coral reefs); and

    •   Working with a wide variety of stakeholders to develop and implement ecosystem-based
       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
       promotion of dredged material  management in a watershed context.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Ocean and coastal  waters are environmentally and economically valuable to the nation.  To
protect and improve water quality on a watershed basis, EPA will support implementation of the
National Policy for Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts143, and  Great Lakes by working with
states, tribes, agencies, and stakeholders on enhancing the quality of our valuable coastal and
ocean resources and applying sustainable marine and land use practices.  The health of ocean and
coastal waters, as  well  as progress toward meeting strategic targets, will be tracked through
periodic  issuance of National Coastal Condition reports, which are a cooperative project with
federal and state agencies, and by using the OSV Bold to increase our knowledge of our oceans
and coasts. Key FY 2012 actions include:

Controlling Vessel Operational Discharges

    •   Develop management practices and associated  performance standards  for discharges
       incidental to the normal operation of recreational vessels;

    •   Evaluate and  respond to rulemaking  requests to revise EPA vessel  sewage standards
       under the Clean Water Act;

    •   Support of implementation and reissuance of the Vessel General Permit (Clean Water
       Act, Section 402);

    •   Coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and with other EPA offices on activities
       related to the control of sewage discharges from vessels;

    •   Participate  in  site visits and  the review of clean-up plans for individual Navy and
       Maritime Administration vessel-to-reef projects;

    •   Coordinate and support the USCG activities to develop  and implement ballast water
       discharge standards;
 3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes
                                           624

-------
   •   Participate on the U.S. delegation to the Marine Environment Protection Committee of
       the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop international standards and
       guidance under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
       and other IMO conventions addressing operational discharges from ships;

   •   Support a nationally consistent policy for the designation of no discharge zones (NDZs)
       for vessel  sewage.  Increase awareness and understanding of the no discharge  zone
       program by disseminating NDZ mapping information via EPA's website; and

   •   Evaluate the environmental impacts of sewage  and gray water  discharges from cruise
       ships.

Managing the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act  (MPRSA) / Ocean Dumping
Management Program (including Dredged Material)

The Agency will monitor active  dredged material ocean dumping sites to ensure achievement of
environmentally acceptable conditions,  as reflected in Site Management and Monitoring Plans
(SMMPs):

   •   On an annual basis, EPA regional offices will determine whether dredged material ocean
       dumping sites are achieving environmentally acceptable conditions, as defined by  each
       SMMP. Corrective actions will  be taken by the appropriate parties should a site not
       achieve acceptable conditions.

   •   As co-chair of the National Dredging Team, EPA will continue working with the Army
       Corps  of Engineers and EPA  regional offices to implement  a tracking system for
       beneficial use of dredged materials  (as an alternative  to dumping in  ocean or coastal
       waters).

   •   Work with other federal  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  ocean fertilization, including  any required permitting under
       MPRSA.

   •   Ensure that U.S. policy and procedures regarding ocean dumping are consistent with the
       London Convention of 1972 and  1996 London Protocol.

   •   Manage the ocean dumping vessels tracking system that is used to determine compliance
       with a general permit under MPRSA for ocean dumping  of vessels in the United States.

Monitoring and Assessment

During FY 2012, the OSVBold will continue to support the following types of activities:

   •   Collect environmental data from several offshore areas for  use in the designation of: (1)
       dredged material disposal sites;  (2) periodic environmental monitoring of the 65 active
                                          625

-------
       ocean disposal  sites;  (3)  monitoring of offshore discharge sites (e.g., outfalls) or
       wastewater outfalls; and (4) monitoring of significantly impacted or important coastal
       waters or National Estuary Programs such as the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, Florida
       coral reefs, Puget Sound, New York/New Jersey Harbor, and Long Island Sound.

Reducing Marine Debris

   •   Work with other members of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee
       (IMDCC) to assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris per the Marine Debris Research,
       Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006.

   •   Lead an EPA workgroup tasked with developing a comprehensive approach to address
       the types, sources, movement, and impacts of marine debris.

Interagency Collaborations for Ocean and Coastal Protection

   •   Continue to participate in the  implementation of the objectives laid  out in the Final
       Recommendations of the Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force, which were adopted by
       Executive Order 13547. The National Policy for the Stewardship  of the Ocean,  Our
       Coasts, and Great Lakes,  and the Framework  for Coastal  and Marine Spatial Planning
       strengthen the work that  the  federal government conducts with states,  tribes,  and
       stakeholders to protect vital resources in our waters.

   •   Continue to participate on  the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force by supporting coral  reef
       ecosystem protection through ongoing efforts to reduce impacts from land-based sources
       of pollution, rising water temperatures, ocean acidification, and vessel discharges.

   •   Participate  on the  Cabinet-level  Committee on the Marine Transportation System to
       identify  strategic goals and actions required to meet the present and future needs of the
       users of the marine transportation system.   EPA promotes the environmentally sound
       integration of marine transportation with other modes of transportation and with other
       ocean,  coastal,   and Great  Lakes  uses,  such  as  dredging  and dredged   material
       management, reducing pollutant sources during operations  and cargo handling, reducing
       environmental impacts, and responding to accidents.

   •   Participate on an interagency work group tasked to review and make recommendations in
       a report to Congress on  best  management practices for  the storage and  disposal of
       obsolete vessels owned or operated by the federal government.
                                          626

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(co5) Percent of active
dredged material ocean
dumping sites that will
have achieved
environmentally
acceptable conditions
(as reflected in each
site's management
plan).
FY 2010
Target




98




FY 2010
Actual




90.1




FY2011
CR
Target




98




FY 2012
Target




95




Units




Percent Sites




FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$199.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$1.0)  This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area
       Network (LAN), and other telecommunications and IT security requirements.

    •   (+$15.0)  This reflects an increase  to support marine  ecosystem  monitoring  and
       protection.

    •   (-1.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$195.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending  for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services,  printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work  to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                          627

-------
Statutory Authority:

Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554); Clean Boating Act (PL 110-288);
Clean Water Act (CWA); Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA);
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide  and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Liberty Ship Act (16 U.S.C. §§
1220, et  seq.), Marine Debris  Research, Prevention and Reduction Act of 2006 (MDRPRA);
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and  Control Act  of  1987 (MPPRCA); Marine Pollution
Research Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
Section 3516; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 102; NTS A of 1996; North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);  Ocean Dumping Ban Act  of 1988; Olympic Air
Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA); (Pension Protection Act (PPA); Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA);  Shore  Protection  Act (SPA);
Toxic Substances Control  Act (TSCA); Water Resources  Development  Act (WRDA); Wet
Weather Water Quality Act of 2000.
                                         628

-------
                                                                Surface Water Protection
                                                    Program Area: Water Quality Protection
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$208,626.0
$208,626.0
1,106.5
FY 2010
Actuals
$201,136.3
$201,136.3
1,081.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$208,626.0
$208,626.0
1,106.5
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$212,069.0
$212,069.0
1,094.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,443.0
$3,443.0
-12.1
Program Project Description:

The  Surface Water Protection Program under the Clean Water Act (CWA) directly supports
efforts to protect, improve, and restore the quality of our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. EPA
works with states and tribes to make continued progress toward the clean water goals identified
in EPA's Strategic Plan by implementing core clean water programs,  including  accelerating
innovations that implement programs on  a watershed basis.  This program also includes the
Urban Waters program which is part of the America's Great Outdoors program.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will focus its work with states, interstate agencies, tribes and others in key
areas of the National  Water Program. The main components and requested funding levels are:
water quality standards and technology ($49 million); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) ($42 million); water monitoring ($24 million); Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) ($28 million); watershed and nonpoint source management ($31  million); sustainable
infrastructure management ($19 million); water infrastructure grants management ($13 million);
and CWA Section  106 program management ($7 million).

Water Quality Criteria and Standards:

Water quality criteria and standards provide the scientific and regulatory foundation for water
quality protection  programs under the CWA.  The criteria define which waters are  clean and
which waters are  impaired, and  thereby  serve as benchmarks for decisions  about  allowable
pollutant loadings into waterways.
144
In FY 2012, 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, pathogens, and chemical pollutants in ambient water.  EPA will
continue to work with state  and Tribal partners to  help  them  develop standards that  are
  See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more information
                                           629

-------
"approvable" under the CWA, including providing advance guidance and technical assistance,
where appropriate, before the standards are formally submitted to EPA. EPA expects that 85
percent of state submissions will be approvable in FY 2012.

Excessive nutrients continue to be one of the leading causes for impaired waters. A key element
to making progress is the development of numerical nutrient water quality standards.  However,
many states lack the technical and financial resources to develop them.  EPA will place a higher
emphasis on assistance to the states to accelerate adoption of numerical nutrient standards and to
support federal determinations or promulgations.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):

In FY 2012, 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.  EPA is working with states to structure the
permit program to better support comprehensive protection of water quality on a watershed basis
and also support the  recent increases in the scope  of the program arising from court orders and
environmental issues. EPA will  focus on several other key strategic objectives for the NPDES
and effluent guideline programs:

   •  Conduct regional  program assessments  and permit quality reviews to ensure the health
      and integrity  of the NPDES program, continue to address workload  concerns in permit
      issuance,  focus 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  the use  of electronic reporting and other
      streamlining  tools.  The  foundation  of these  efforts is  to  reinforce nationally  the
      importance of strong science and the adherence to the law;

   •  Collaborate with  partner organizations to promote  the use  of green infrastructure  in
      stormwater permits and in plans to control overflows in combined and separate sanitary
      sewer systems;

   •  Implement  strategies to  improve management  of pretreatment programs.   Strategies
      include: implementation  of  pretreatment program  results; a Measures Handbook  for
      Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that will be finalized in FY 2011 to discuss
      the  environmental links  between the regulation, their oversight activities, and their
      watershed impact; and updated checklists and guidance for POTW program development;

   •  Continue to  work with states and permitees to  resolve  issues related to overflows in
      separate sanitary sewer systems  and bypasses at the treatment plant to ensure that water
      quality is protected during wet weather events;

   •  Provide assistance to  states  to develop  technology and  water quality  based  permit
      conditions that address new waste streams, such as Flue Gas Desulfurization;
                                          630

-------
   •   Issue the annual plan that describes the CWA-mandated review of industrial categories to
       determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted; and

   •   Assist states  to  address  permitting issues  arising from  unconventional  oil and gas
       extraction, such as shale gas and coal-bed methane, in a timely manner that is consistent
       with state standards and technology requirements.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to  focus  on a number of relatively new NPDES, effluent
guideline, and nonpoint source program areas.  These areas of increased environmental concern
emphasize the need to engage the network of federal, state, and local partners to take actions that
are needed to protect the environment.

   •   The CWA  regulations for Concentrated  Animal  Feeding Operations (CAFOs)  were
       revised in 2003 and further revised in 2008 in response to a 2n Circuit Court ruling.  This
       effort continues to evolve  as a  result of litigation. EPA will conduct a regulatory effort to
       obtain information from all CAFOs, pursuant to a settlement agreement on litigation
       arising from  the  2008 regulatory  revisions.   EPA  expects to  continue  to develop
       implementation guidance and work with states and tribes to fully implement the CAFO
       rule to assure  that all  CAFOs that discharge waste obtain NPDES permit coverage.  EPA
       also will work with permitting authorities to identify which CAFOs need to obtain permit
       coverage  and  provide  the tools and information needed  to prevent  discharges.  In
       addition, EPA will monitor the number of facilities covered by stormwater and CAFO
       permits.

   •   The Agency is developing a rule to strengthen stormwater regulations.  This rulemaking
       will propose requirements for stormwater discharges from, at minimum, newly developed
       and redeveloped sites.  As part of this effort,  EPA will consider redefining the area
       subject to federal regulation. In late 2008, the National Academies of Sciences / National
       Research  Council issued an assessment of the national stormwater program and made
       recommendations to better address pollution from stormwater.  EPA intends to propose
       this rule in the Fall  of 2011, and take final action in  November,  2012  (FY 2013).
       Stormwater is a main contributor of nutrients and sediments, which are two of the top
       three pollutants impairing waters in the United States.

   •   In response to the  Chesapeake Bay  Executive Order  13508 and settlement agreement,
       EPA  will  conduct significant new regulatory,  permitting, modeling, reporting and
       planning efforts to protect and restore the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
       Examples  of  these  actions  include  the  development  of Chesapeake  Bay-specific
       provisions  in the national  stormwater regulation,  and  the  revisions  of  CAFO
       implementation guidance  and regulations.  In addition, EPA will continue to support
       states and EPA Regional Offices in effectively  implementing the NPDES  program to
       improve the health of the watershed.

             o   EPA will  build a record to support  options  for going  beyond national
                 stormwater  requirements  in the  Chesapeake Bay  watershed.  EPA  is
                                          631

-------
                 considering more stringent requirements within the Chesapeake basin, such
                 as:  more  extensively  redefining municipal  separate storm  sewer  system
                 (MS4)-regulated  areas,   establishing  more  stringent  post-construction
                 requirements, and applying these requirements to smaller sites.

              o  The Agency intends to propose regulations  for CAFOs to more effectively
                 address pollution reductions necessary to achieve the objectives of the TMDL
                 for  the Chesapeake Bay  Watershed. EPA may consider  expanding the
                 universe of CAFOs and requiring more stringent  standards for permits (e.g.
                 better nutrient management planning) for CAFOs in the Bay.  Additionally,
                 options for  a streamlined  designation process and  better off-site manure
                 management may be considered for the Bay or nationally.

   •   As  a result of  a 2006  court  ruling, approximately  70  thousand vessels  that  were
       previously exempt from permitting are now covered by an NPDES permit. On December
       18,  2008, EPA issued a new NPDES  general permit to regulate 26 types of discharges
       from vessels operating in U.S. waters.  EPA will develop tools and training to implement
       the vessel permit, to review and approve state vessel permitting programs, and to provide
       outreach to the regulated community.  In addition, EPA is developing scientific protocols
       and models to determine how to more effectively control the introduction of numerous
       aquatic invasive  species into our nation's waters from ballast water discharges.  Ballast
       water discharges have introduced numerous aquatic invasive  species, resulting in severe
       degradation of many ecosystems and billions of dollars of economic damages.

   •   As a result of a January 7, 2009 court ruling, EPA is required to issue permits to pesticide
       applicators  that discharge to waters of the U.S.  EPA will issue and develop a precedent
       setting general  permit for the application of pesticides to waters of the U.S.  EPA
       proposed the permit in calendar year 2010 and will finalize the permit in 2011. EPA must
       assist and oversee 44  authorized states  in developing their own general permits and assist
       in a national effort to  educate the pesticides application industry regarding how to comply
       with the new permits.  As a result, EPA will  collect data for future permits and will
       conduct inspections for a large universe of pesticide applications.  EPA also must develop
       and assist states  in implementing changes to their enforcement programs for pesticides.
       Pesticides  that  are  applied  to water—or  that  enter water  as a  result of  off-target
       application of specific pesticides—may be highly toxic and may cause fish kills, die-offs
       of crabs, lobsters, bird deaths and human illnesses.

Monitoring:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue working with the states and tribes to implement the Monitoring
Initiative,  begun  in 2005,  which includes enhancements to  state  and interstate  monitoring
programs   consistent  with  their  individual  monitoring  strategies,  and  collaboration  on
statistically-valid surveys of the nation's  waters.  The EPA / State Monitoring and Assessment
Partnership is working on approaches to integrate state-scale and national surveys, to optimize
the value of surveys to  state programs, and to develop recommendations to advance state and
national monitoring and assessment. In FY 2012, EPA, states, and tribes will collaborate to
                                          632

-------
conduct field sampling for the second National Lakes Assessment to determine changes since the
first report. This second lakes survey will be conducted in FY 2012 and the assessment will be
completed in FY 2014.   A report of the second National Streams Assessment coupled with a
baseline condition of rivers will be released in FY 2012, and the fifth report on national coastal
condition also will be issued in FY 2012. The Coastal Condition report will include analysis of
impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Analytical work for the National Wetland Condition
Assessment will take place during FY 2012 for a report to be issued in FY 2013. FY 2012 CWA
Section 106  Monitoring Initiative funds will be allocated for sampling for the second National
Rivers and Streams Assessment.

In FY 2012,  EPA will work closely with states as they continue to  enhance their monitoring
programs. EPA stresses the importance of using statistical surveys to generate statewide water
quality assessments, targeted monitoring approaches to develop and evaluate local protection and
restoration activities and the transmission of water  quality data to  the  national storage  and
retrieval (STORET) warehouse  using the new Water Quality Exchange (WQX) protocol. The
publicly  accessible  STORET data warehouse,  using  the  Water Quality Exchange  (WQX)
framework, makes it easier for states, tribes and other organizations to submit water quality data
and share the data over the Internet.  EPA will assist tribes in developing monitoring strategies
appropriate to their water quality programs and encourage tribes to  provide  data in a format
accessible for storage in EPA data systems.

EPA's goal  is to achieve greater integration of federal, regional, state, and  local monitoring
efforts and to connect monitoring and assessment activities across geographic  scales, in a cost-
efficient and  effective manner,  so that scientifically defensible monitoring data is available to
address issues and problems at each of these  scales. EPA will  continue to work with  states,
tribes, and other partners to address research and technical needs  related to sampling methods,
analytical approaches,  and data management. EPA  will continue to promote application of
monitoring and assessment tools to support state and tribal management of nutrient pollution.

Total  Maximum Daily Loads:

Development and implementation of TMDLs for 303(d) listed impaired waterbodies is a critical
tool for meeting water quality restoration goals.  TMDLs focus on clearly defined environmental
goals  and establish a pollutant budget, which is then  implemented via permit requirements and
through local, state,  and federal  watershed plans and programs.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue
to encourage states to organize  schedules for TMDLs to address  all pollutants on an impaired
segment when possible.  Where multiple impaired segments are clustered within a watershed,
EPA  encourages  states  to  organize restoration  activities across  the watershed  (i.e.,  apply a
watershed approach).  To assist in development of watershed TMDLs, EPA  developed two tools:
1) Handbook for Developing Watershed TMDLs145; and 2) a 'checklist' for developing mercury
TMDLs where the source is primarily atmospheric deposition.146 To assist in developing TMDLs
for waters impaired by  storm water-source pollutants, EPA released  a number of documents,
including: 1) Incorporating  Green Infrastructure Concepts  into Total Maximum Daily  Loads
145 www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/ draft handbook.pdf
146 www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/document mercury tmdl elements.pdf
                                          633

-------
(TMDLs)147, and  2) updated guidance  on  how to  more  effectively  address stormwater
impairments under two CWA Programs: 303(d) TMDL  and NPDES Stormwater.  The updated
guidance will assist in the translation of TMDL WLAs into NPDES Stormwater permits, as well
as support innovative approaches, such as Impervious Cover TMDLs, to address the considerable
number of waterbodies polluted by stormwater discharges. For waters impaired by problems for
which TMDLs are not  appropriate,  EPA  will work with partners to develop and implement
activities and watershed plans to restore these waters (e.g., TMDL alternatives).  Cumulatively,
states and EPA have made significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs, and
have completed more than 46,000 total TMDLs through FY 2010.

Nonpoint Source Management:

Nonpoint source management is the integral piece to addressing most of the remaining water
quality problems and threats in the United  States.  Protection and restoration of water quality on
a watershed basis requires  a  careful assessment of the nature  and sources of pollution,  the
location  and setting within the watershed, the  relative influence  on water quality, and  the
amenability to preventive or control  methods.  In FY 2012, 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) while also continuing to protect
those waters that are healthy.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to provide nonpoint  source program leadership and technical
support to states, municipalities, watershed organizations and concerned citizens by:

    •   Creating, supporting, and promoting technical  tools that  states  and tribes  need to
       accurately assess water quality problems and analyze and implement solutions;

    •   Implementing the Web-based tool to support watershed planning, "Watershed Central",
       including the integration of the Watershed Plan Builder within Watershed Central148.
       Watershed Central is an outreach tool designed to assist users to develop and implement
       effective watershed  management  programs.  The site includes guidance, tools, case
       studies,  and data sets to help  share information, analyze data, and identify opportunities
       to initiate or strengthen watershed efforts;

    •   Assuring accountability for results through (1) use of EPA's nonpoint source program
       grants tracking system  (GRTS), which will continue to track  the  nationwide pollutant
       load reductions achieved for  phosphorus,  nitrogen and sediment and (2) tracking  the
       remediation of waterbodies that had been primarily impaired by nonpoint sources and
       that were subsequently restored  so that they may be removed from the Section 303(d) list
       of impaired waters149;
147 www.epa.gov/owow/tmdVstormwater/pdf/tmdl_lid_final.pdf
148 http://www.epa.gov/watershedcentral
149 ,
  www.epa.gov/nps/success
                                           634

-------
    •  Focusing on the development and  dissemination of new tools to promote Low Impact
       Development (LID), thereby preventing new nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly
       including  analyses designed to assist in EPA's  efforts  to promulgate  an effective
       stormwater rule designed to minimize post-development runoff.  LID is an 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.150

    •  Implementing the Healthy Watersheds Strategy, in cooperation with states, academia, and
       non-governmental organizations, that focuses on protection of the watersheds of healthy
       waters (as well  as healthy components  of other watersheds).   This strategy will include
       the publication  of a guide to protect aquatic  ecosystems, the publication of a detailed
       Healthy Watersheds  agenda with both  short-term  and long-term  components,  and
       enhancement of EPA's Healthy Watersheds Website151, which is replete with tools  for
       assessment of healthy watersheds and  implementation of approaches to maintain their
       health, as well as information on successful state and local approaches that are already
       underway;

    •  Continuing coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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,
       Bureau  of Land Management, and other federal  agencies  with land  management
       responsibilities  to  address water  quality  impairments  by maintaining  and restoring
       National Forest  System watersheds;

    •  Targeting  efforts within critical watersheds to implement effective strategies  that can
       yield significant progress in addressing  nonpoint  source nutrient pollution.  Specifically,
       EPA will continue to  support state efforts to design and implement nutrient reduction
       strategies  and to design watershed plans;  promote  sustainable agricultural practices;
       collaborate to leverage and focus  the  most effective nutrient and sediment reduction
       practices;  work to leverage  resources  of   federal and  state  partners  to  address
       development and wetland restoration;  and support critical monitoring needs to inform
       decision-making; and

    •  Providing   oversight   of   states'  development   and   implementation  of  effective
       accountability frameworks for point and nonpoint  sources, provide guidance to permit
       writers on how to implement criteria in NPDES permits, and promulgate numeric nutrient
       standards for a state(s) as appropriate and/or necessary.

Additionally, EPA is currently initiating a project to work with state partners to complete a
detailed  evaluation  of how  states  are  using  CWA  S.  319  grant resources, including
implementation of TMDLs  and  restoring impaired  waters, with  the goal  of beginning to
implement study recommendations in FY2012.  A key emphasis will be on improving  program
150 www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html
151 www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds
                                           635

-------
accountability and ensuring that States are using cost effective approaches to protect and restore
their waters.  In FY 2012, EPA  will begin to implement some program  reforms, including
incentives to states to implement more effective nonpoint source management programs.

Sustainable Infrastructure:

EPA will continue to implement its Sustainable Infrastructure Strategy and work with its partners
to facilitate the voluntary adoption of effective management practices  by water sector utilities.
EPA will  provide a limited amount of training and technical  support to water and wastewater
utilities,  local  communities,  and municipalities  as  they strive  to  achieve  the  long-term
sustainability of their operations  and infrastructure.   The Agency will work with other key
partners such as local  officials and academia to help increase public understanding and support
for sustaining the  nation's water infrastructure.

One of the key components  of the Agency's broader efforts to ensure long-term sustainable
water infrastructure is its water-efficiency labeling effort called WaterSense.  WaterSense 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.  Through  FY 2010, the Agency had issued
voluntary  specifications for four  water-efficient  service categories (certification programs for
irrigation  system  auditors, designers, and installation and  maintenance professionals) and four
product  categories  (residential  High-Efficiency  Toilets (HETs),  bathroom  faucets  and
accessories,  commercial  flushing urinals,  and residential showerheads).  In late  2009, the
program released  a new homes specification that provides benchmark criteria for water-efficient
new homes, designed to save water indoors as well as outdoors.  Product specifications include
water efficiency as well as performance criteria to ensure that products not only  save water but
also work as  well  as standard products in  the  marketplace.   Products may  only bear the
WaterSense label after being tested by  an independent laboratory to ensure that they  meet
WaterSense specifications.

In FY 2012, the Agency expects  to release a  final specification  for pre-rinse spray valves (in
collaboration with ENERGY  STAR) and  a  draft specification  for residential  water softener
systems.   The Agency will continue to research other product and  service categories including
residential plumbing and irrigation, commercial  kitchens,  and laboratories, and may  move to
develop specifications based on the outcome of that research.

In less than five 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.  At the end of 2010, approximately 620 different models of high-efficiency
toilets, more than 2,300 faucet models and accessories, 44 models  of flushing urinals, and 245
models of showerheads had earned the WaterSense label.  Cumulative savings in the  program
due to products shipped through the end of 2009 (the most recent year for which there are data)
exceeds 47 billion gallons and $343  million  in savings.  The program  is continuing  to build
participation in its labeling program for residential new homes, which  has not progressed as
quickly as hoped  due to downturns in the housing market.  As of December 2010, the  program
had signed up more than 35 builders, including one national builder which completed the first
                                           636

-------
WaterSense labeled homes in the fall of 2010. The program anticipates that the market for water
efficient  homes will improve as market  surveys  indicate  that construction of green homes is
recovering from the economic downturn more quickly than  standard homes.

In addition to working with manufacturers, retailers, and builders to deliver labeled products and
homes to consumers,  EPA continues to partner with  utilities,  irrigation professionals,  and
community organizations to educate consumers on the benefits of switching to water-efficient
products. By the end of 2010, the program had more than 2,100 partners, including utilities from
across the country, that are adopting WaterSense as a key  component of their water-efficiency,
energy efficiency, and  climate adaptation efforts.  The partners are  a key to building a strong
network  of stakeholders across the Nation to build awareness of the need for efficient use  of
water. WaterSense  also is working within  the federal government  to ensure that it  leads by
example  through the use of water-efficient products and practices as part of supporting efforts to
implement Executive Order 13154, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance.

Policy and oversight of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs), which provide low
interest loans to help finance wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects, are
supported by this program. In managing the CWSRF, EPA continues to work with states to meet
several key objectives:

    •  Fund  projects  designed  as part of an  integrated  watershed  approach  to sustain
      communities, encourage and support green infrastructure, and preserve and create jobs;

    •  Link projects to environmental results through the use of water quality and public health
      data;

    •  Maintain the excellent fiduciary condition of the funds;

    •  Continue to  support states' efforts in developing integrated priority  lists to  address
      nonpoint source pollution, estuary protection, and wastewater projects;  and

    •  Work with  state and local partners to implement a sustainability  policy  including
      management  and pricing to encourage conservation and to provide adequate long-term
      funding for future capital needs.

In FY 2012,  states will complete voluntary  submission of data and documents for review and
potential  inclusion in the Clean Watersheds  Needs Survey (CWNS)  2012 Report to Congress.
The CWNS documents capital  needs and compiles  technical  information for publicly-owned
wastewater collection  and  treatment facilities, combined sewer overflows  (CSOs) control
facilities,  stormwater  management  facilities,  decentralized  wastewater  (septic)  treatment
systems,   and nonpoint  source  (NPS)  pollution  control.  CWNS data  supports  funding
prioritization   and  outreach  activities  as   well  as permitting  and  other  watershed-based
management activities.
                                           637

-------
The  Agency also will provide oversight and support  for 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.

Healthy Communities Initiative:

In FY 2012, EPA will implement the Urban Waters program. Many urban waters are impaired by
pathogens, excess  nutrients, and  contaminated sediments that  result from sanitary  sewer and
combined sewer overflows, polluted runoff from urban landscapes,  and legacy contamination.
Under  this initiative, EPA will assist communities, particularly underserved communities, in
restoring urban waterways and the surrounding land through partnerships with governmental and
non-governmental organizations. Areas of focus may include innovative civic engagement and
public  outreach, risk screening,  environmental education, sustainable financing,  technical support
and training, and development of a local urban waters vision  plan.  Under the Urban Waters
program, which is part of the America's Great Outdoors program, EPA will provide grants and
technical assistance to communities to accelerate measurable improvements in water quality.

The Agency also will provide targeted technical assistance to showcase communities and small
grant recipients to help them achieve their water restoration and community engagement goals.
The implementation of grant programs will  build on lessons learned through place-based federal
partnership efforts.  In addition, EPA plans  to address urban water issues by reorienting existing
programs. EPA will  take regulatory actions to address  water quality problems impacting urban
waters: for example, propose and implement the pesticides general permit  and  post-construction
stormwater  rule, and  develop  recreational water quality criteria.   EPA  will promote  green
infrastructure such  as expanding successful  low impact development  and green streets  pilot
programs and at the same time encourage  the incorporation of skills training  and employment
opportunities as part  of these projects.  EPA will engage both underserved communities near
urban waters and the practitioners who assist them via expanded outreach efforts that utilize both
traditional and innovative methods (e.g., social media, Watershed Central).

Regaining Ground Initiative: Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas:

The requested increase in funding will allow EPA to review new and existing rules.  EPA will
ensure that  electronic reporting and  advanced monitoring requirements  are  incorporated as
necessary to ensure compliance.

Surface Coal Mining:

EPA will continue to implement the Appalachian Coal Mining  Interagency Action Plan (LAP)
that was  signed with the  Department of Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers on June 11,
2009,  to significantly  reduce the  harmful  effects  of  Appalachian  surface coal  mining
operations.15   Sections 404 and 402 activities will include  development of program guidance,
strengthened interagency  coordination, project reviews,  training  and technical assistance. Based
on its  review in 2011 of existing regulatory authorities and  procedures, EPA will consider
 •http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Final MTM MOU 6-ll-09.pdf
                                           638

-------
regulatory and/or policy modifications to better protect the environment and public health from
the impacts of Appalachian surface coal mining. Improved watershed-scale/cumulative impact
analysis  and  increased  attention  to impacts  on  socially  and  economically  disadvantaged
communities are areas identified for future policy refinement.

In FY 2009 and FY 2010, EPA completed several of the short term actions under the June 11,
2009 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), including publishing an interim guide to the states
on effective use of CWA Section  401  certification and conducting a permit quality review of
issued Section  402  permits.  Substantial  progress  was  made in  improving  interagency
coordination with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and US Army Corps of Engineers. EPA
also released interim  guidance to  the Regional offices on the review of surface coal mining
applications under CWA Section 402 and 404, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act
and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.153
Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(bpp) Percent of
submissions of new or
revised water quality
standards from States
and Territories that are
approved by EPA.

FY 2010
Target


85



FY 2010
Actual


90.9


FY2011
CR
Target


85



FY 2012
Target


85



Units


Percent
Submissions


Measure
Type








Output








Measure
(bps) Number of
TMDLs that are
established or
approved by EPA
[Total TMDL] on a
schedule consistent
with national policy
(cumulative). [A
TMDL is a technical
plan for reducing
pollutants in order to
attain water quality
standards. The terms
"approved" and
"established" refer to
the completion and
approval of the TMDL
itself]
FY 2010
Target








44,560








FY 2010
Actual








46,817








FY2011
CR
Target








49,375








FY 2012
Target








51,923








Units








TMDLs








  See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/pdf/appalachian mtntop mining detailed.pdf for more information.
                                           639

-------

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(bpv) Percent of high
priority EPA and state
NPDES permits
(including tribal) that
are issued in the fiscal
year.

FY 2010
Target


95



FY 2010
Actual


138


FY2011
CR
Target


100



FY 2012
Target


100



Units


Percent
Permits


Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(uwl) Number of
urban water projects
initiated addressing
water quality issues in
the community.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target
3
Units
Projects
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(uw2) Number of
urban water projects
completed addressing
water quality issues in
the community.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target
0
Units
Projects
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(L) Number of
waterbody segments
identified by States in
2002 as not attaining
standards, where water
quality standards are
now fully attained
(cumulative).
FY 2010
Target



2,809



FY 2010
Actual



2,909



FY2011
CR
Target



3,073



FY 2012
Target



3,273



Units



Segments



Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(wq2) Remove the
specific causes of
waterbody impairment
identified by states in
2002 (cumulative).
FY 2010
Target
8,512
FY 2010
Actual
8,446
FY2011
CR
Target
9,016
FY 2012
Target
9,566
Units
Causes
640

-------

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(wq3) Improve water
quality conditions in
impaired watersheds
nationwide using the
watershed approach
(cumulative).

FY 2010
Target


141



FY 2010
Actual


168


FY2011
CR
Target


208



FY 2012
Target


238



Units


Watersheds



Measure
Type

Efficiency


Measure
(bpr) Loading (pounds)
of pollutants removed
per program dollar
expended.

FY 2010
Target

371


FY 2010
Actual

n/a

FY2011
CR
Target

371


FY 2012
Target

381


Units

Pounds

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$3,072.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE

    •   (-$808.0 / -4.1 FTE) This reflects a redirection of Mountaintop Mining resources for the
       Appalachian Coal Mining Interagency Action Plan from Surface Water Protection to the
       Wetlands program to accommodate the need for additional  CWA S. 404 permit review.
       This includes -4.1 FTE and -$534.0 in associated payroll.

    •   (-$1,218.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$5,000.0 / +6.0 FTE)  This increase will support the Urban Waters program which is
       part of the America's Great Outdoors program.  EPA will  provide grants and technical
       assistance to communities to accelerate measurable improvements in water quality. This
       assistance will support monitoring,  studies, planning, training and related outreach
       activities  while   simultaneously  promoting  community  revitalization  and   equitable
       community improvements. Social and economic benefits will be a result of reductions in
       pollution in urban waters and on adjacent lands.  This includes +6.0 FTE and +$795.0 in
       associated payroll.

    •   (-$851.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                           641

-------
   •   (+$443.0 / +1.0 FTE)  This increase supports the Regaining Ground initiative: Increasing
       Compliance in Critical Areas.  It will allow EPA to review new and existing rules to
       ensure that electronic reporting and advanced monitoring requirements are incorporated
       as necessary to ensure compliance.  This includes +1.0 FTE and +$143.0 in associated
       payroll.

   •   (-$2,195.0 / -0.4 FTE) This decrease represents reductions in EPA technical support to
       states for TMDLs, NPDES permits and Water Quality Standards. The impact of these
       reductions will be mitigated by the increases in direct funding to states through the 106
       program. This includes -0.4 FTE and -$43.0 in associated payroll.

   •   (-14.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTE to better reflect utilization
       rates

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. - Various Sections 1251 to 1387
                                          642

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Inspector General

Resource Summary Table	645
Program Projects in IG	645
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations	646
   Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	647
                                       643

-------
644

-------
                          Environmental Protection Agency
           FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                        APPROPRIATION: Inspector General
                              Resource Summary Table
                                (Dollars in Thousands)




Inspector General
Budget Authority
Total Workyears


FY 2010
Enacted

$44,791.0
296.0


FY 2010
Actuals

$49,164.4
283.3

FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$44,791.0
296.0


FY 2012
Pres Budget

$45,997.0
300.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

$1,206.0
4.0
                      Bill Language: Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, $45,997,000, to remain available until September
30, 2013. Note. — A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time
the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L.
111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by
the continuing resolution.
                               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 2010
Enacted

$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$49,164.4
$49,164.4
$49,164.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget

$45,997.0
$45,997.0
$45,997.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

$1,206.0
$1,206.0
$1,206.0
                                         645

-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations and Investigations
                       646

-------
                                                 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
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority /
Obligations
Total Workyears



FY 2010
Enacted
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$0.0
$9,975.0
$54,766.0
361.8



FY2010
Actuals
$49,164.4
$42,238.8
$6,925.6
$9,337.9
$58,502.3
335.5


FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$0.0
$9,975.0
$54,766.0
361.8


FY2012
IG
Request
$49,591.0
$49,591.0
$0.0
$11,175.0
$60,766.0
373.8


FY2012
Pres
Budget
$45,997.0
$45,997.0
$0.0
$10,009.0
$56,006.0
365.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
V.
FY2010
Enacted
$1,206.0
$1,206.0
$0.0
$34.0
$1,240.0
4.0
Program/Project Description:

EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, and investigative 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 management resolve risks
and challenges, achieve opportunities for savings, and  implement actions 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, contract 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. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery
Act) provided the OIG with $20 million in additional Budget Authority for oversight activities in
FY 2009 available for obligation through FY 2012.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in  its efforts to  reduce environmental and human health
risks by making recommendations to improve program operations, save taxpayer dollars, and
identify and resolve major management challenges. In FY 2012, the OIG will continue focusing
on areas associated with risk, fraud, waste, and cyber intrusions, and will make recommendations
to improve operating efficiency  leading  to  greater  transparency, secured and trustworthy
systems, and the cost effective attainment of EPA's strategic goals and positive environmental
                                          647

-------
impacts.  The OIG  plans  to  examine  issues  related to  grants  and  contracts,  computer
infrastructure, homeland security, efficiencies,  financial  management, internal controls/risk
assessment,   enforcement,  program  management,  measurement  data  verification,  project
management, effective resource management, EPA efforts to implement the Recovery  Act,
research, and follow-up on OIG recommendations.

Audits

Audits will  be focused in six areas: (1) assistance agreements  and contracts; (2)  financial
statement audits and other audits of Agency financial management; (3) risk assessment, internal
controls, and program performance; (4) forensic audits of EPA grantees and contractors;
(5) efficiencies in Agency operations; and (6) security of EPA network  infrastructure and EPA
capability to respond to network-based attacks. Planned work will focus on:

   •   collections of amounts due EPA;
   •  justification for, and oversight of, subcontracts;
   •   prevention of cost overruns and project delays;
   •   Agency oversight of Recovery Act funds;
   •   price/cost reasonableness and maximization of fixed price competitive contract awards;
   •   Agency oversight of interagency agreements;
   •   Agency efforts to identify and prevent improper payments;
   •   grantee and contractor compliance with grant and contract terms and conditions;
   •   identification of efficiencies in the Agency's infrastructure and business processes;
   •   workforce planning and utilization;
   •   implementation of centralized identification and authentication services  for network
       access;
   •   the Agency's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR);
   •   the Agency's new Financial Management System and Facility Access Systems;
   •   the Agency's Quality Management Program;
   •   the Agency's risk assessment process;
   •   use of program performance measurement to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and
   •   Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's investigative activities.

A significant portion of audit resources will be devoted to mandated work assessing the financial
statements of EPA and the Chemical  Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as required by the
Chief Financial Officers Act.  OIG work also will include assessing the information  security
practices of EPA and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation  Board as required by the
Federal Information Security  Management  Act and  oversight of audits of EPA assistance
agreement recipients conducted pursuant to the Single Audit Act.

Evaluations

Evaluations are conducted through five product lines: (1) air and research; (2) land;
(3) water and enforcement; (4) cross-media; and (5) special reviews.  Specific areas of evaluation
will include:
                                          648

-------
   •   integration of sustainability criteria in all Agency programs and activities;
   •   various Agency Recovery Act activities and projects;
   •   use of interagency and assistance agreements to augment the Agency's research mission;
   •   Agency oversight of State and Regional penalty assessments;
   •   Agency oversight of investigations and reviews that document environmental conditions
       at Brownfield sites;
   •   the effectiveness of quality assurance in the Brownfields program;
   •   the Agency's Environmental Results Program;
   •   the Agency's oversight of the Clean Air Act Settlement Agreements;
   •   how the Agency responds to emerging trends;
   •   potential approaches for leveraging, controlling, and allocating Agency program
       resources to reduce duplication;
   •   the Agency's organizational methods and policies;
   •   the Agency's program data and performance results;
   •   the process EPA used to develop its greenhouse gas endangerment finding;
   •   progress in implementing the Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program for assessing
       health risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals;
   •   the budgeting, use, and management of research funds; and
   •   EPA's oversight of Recovery Act diesel emissions reductions.

Investigations

The majority of investigative work is reactive in nature and some allegations of fraud, waste or
mismanagement are received through the OIG Hotline Program. The OIG will prioritize its work
by evaluating  allegations to determine which investigations may  have the  greatest impact on
Agency funds, network  infrastructure, the  integrity of EPA programs  and  operations, and
produce the greatest deterrent effect.  Investigations assist EPA in meeting its strategic goals by
helping to protect the Agency's scarce resources from fraudulent or criminal activities,  so that
they can be used to protect the environment and human health.

The OIG  will  conduct investigations and seek  prosecution  of criminal activity and  serious
misconduct in EPA  programs and operations that undermine Agency integrity,  the public trust,
and create imminent environmental risks as well as seek civil judgments to obtain recovery and
restitution of financial losses. Investigations will focus on: (1) fraudulent financial activities in
the award, performance, and payment of funds under EPA contracts, grants, and other assistance
agreements to  individuals, companies, and organizations; (2) intrusions into  and attacks  against
EPA's network, as well as incidents of computer misuse  and theft of intellectual property  or
sensitive data;  (3) infrastructure/terrorist threat; (4) criminal activity  or  serious misconduct
affecting EPA program integrity or involving EPA personnel  which could undermine or erode
the public trust; (5) laboratory fraud relating to payments made by EPA for  compromised
environmental testing data and results that could undermine the bases for EPA decision-making,
regulatory compliance, and enforcement actions;  and (6) release of, unauthorized access to,  or
use of sensitive or proprietary information.
                                          649

-------
Special attention will be directed towards identifying the tactics, techniques, and procedures that
are being utilized by cyber criminals to obtain EPA's information for their own geopolitical, geo-
economic, or geo-environmental motives.  The OIG will directly assist EPA senior leadership as
well as federal cyber criminal,  counterintelligence, and counterterrorism  communities through
collaboration with OIG counterparts in other federal agencies.  Analyzing the intruded systems
along with known national intelligence data will allow the OIG to help the Agency determine if
systems are  under attack and whether key information has been exfiltrated.  It will enable the
OIG to understand and  anticipate acts of intelligence gathering to recommend risk reduction
techniques and products to EPA and other federal law enforcement agencies, and to pursue
judicial remedies.

On November 13,  2009, EPA's  Computer Security  Incident  Response  Capability Center
(CSIRC) provided email to  the OIG identifying 14 compromised computer systems that are
associated with an ongoing OIG investigation. On December 20, 2009, the OIG was provided a
spreadsheet, associated with the same investigation, which identified 628 unique EPA computers
attempting  to  communicate with  United  States  Computer Emergency  Readiness  Team
(USCERT)  reported  suspicious domains.  On January 12, 2010, the Agency reported 1,589
unique EPA computers attempting to communicate with suspicious external computer domains.
By June 2010, the Agency reported that more than  6,000 unique computers were attempting to
communicate with USCERT reported suspicious domains.  These systems extend to every EPA
Regional  office and  Headquarters  component and account for roughly  24 percent of the
Agency's entire computer network,  as reported based on methodologies determined by (CSIRC).
Until the OIG  has   confirmed  information  to the  contrary,  the  entire  reported potential
compromise event must be considered as a crime scene, subject to the adherence  of rules for
properly processing and preserving the scene for evidence of a crime. EPA reported that it was
not able  to  identify  the owners of approximately 10 percent of the Internet  Protocol  (IP)
addresses that were identified as being potentially compromised from within  its own domain IP
space. EPA also reported information related to internet traffic representing a significant amount
of data being exfiltrated from the Agency originating from these potentially  compromised
systems.  The EPA is faced with its limitations to effectively respond to these external network
threats as reported by  the  OIG  in the Fiscal  Year 2010 Management Challenges report.
Additional resources in FY 2012 will strengthen the OIG's ability to investigate cyber attacks or
develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy.

Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis

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,  opportunities  for needed
corrective actions, and will facilitate greater accountability for results from  OIG operations.

OIG also conducts reviews and analysis of proposed and existing policies,  rules, regulations and
legislation to identify vulnerability to waste, fraud and abuse.  These reviews  also  consider
possible duplication,  gaps or conflicts with existing authority, leading to  recommendations for
improvements in their structure, content and application.
                                          650

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(35B) Environmental
and business
recommendations or
risks identified for
corrective action.
FY 2010
Target
903
FY 2010
Actual
945
FY2011
CR
Target
903
FY 2012
Target
993
Units
Recommendations

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(35D) Criminal, civil,
administrative, and
fraud prevention
actions.

FY 2010
Target

75


FY 2010
Actual

115

FY2011
CR
Target

80


FY 2012
Target

85


Units

Actions

Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(3 5 A) Environmental
and business actions
taken for improved
performance or risk
reduction.
FY 2010
Target
334
FY 2010
Actual
391
FY2011
CR
Target
334
FY 2012
Target
375
Units
Actions

Measure
Type


Efficiency



Measure
(3 5 C) Return on the
annual dollar
investment, as a
percentage of the OIG
budget, from audits
and investigations.

FY 2010
Target


120



FY 2010
Actual


30


FY2011
CR
Target


120



FY 2012
Target


110



Units


Percent


                                      651

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$421.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$1,000.07+4.0 FTE) This increase in resources will support specialized  OIG cyber
       investigation  and homeland  security staff and  equipment  to assist in the essential
       protection of EPA infrastructure and intellectual property, national infrastructure, and to
       provide data inputs to the counterintelligence/counterterrorism/counter cyber terrorism
       intelligence community and Agency senior leadership.  The additional resources include
       $680.0 associated payroll for 4.0 FTE.

    •   (-$103.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies  and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing  and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$14.0) This  change reflects a realignment of the Agency's IT and telecommunications
       resources for the Computer Security Incident Response Center  from across programs to
       the Information Security program.

    •   (-$94.0) This  reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agency-wide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million agency wide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

    •   (-$4.0)  This reflects  a  realignment  of OIG  contract resources between the IG and
       Superfund appropriations.


Statutory Authority:

Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector General Reform Act; Reports Consolidation Act;
Single Audit Act; CFO Act; GMRA; PRIA; RCRA; FFMIA; FISMA; FQPA; TSCA.

Inspector General Reform Act:

The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of the  Inspector General
Reform Act:

    •   the aggregate  budget request from the Inspector General for the operations of the OIG is
       $60,766,000 ($49,591,000 Inspector General; $11,175,000 Superfund Transfer);
    •   the aggregate  request in  the President's Budget for the operations of the OIG is $56,006
       ($45,997,000 Inspector General; $10,009,000 Superfund Transfer);
    •   the  portion of the aggregate request in the  Present's Budget needed  for training is
       $900,000;
                                          652

-------
"I certify as the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I
have requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2012".

The  OIG's requested budget  for FY 2012 represents a $6,000,000 increase over  the OIG's
portion of the FY 2010 Enacted Budget ($54,766,000 to $60,766,000). The additional funding is
necessary for the following reasons:

Congress and  the President have expressed concerns about the increasing vulnerability of the
Federal IT infrastructure to timely address known and potential cyber security threats requiring
highly specialized detection, prevention and enforcement skills and tools.

Additional resources in FY 2012 are needed to strengthen the OIG's ability to investigate cyber
attacks or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy.  The  current OIG cyber
security investigative team's limited resources and specialty skills are impeding the OIG's ability
to effectively  investigate cyber attacks  or  develop and deploy a  prevention and  mitigation
strategy to assist the Agency in securing their networks from attack and address the current and
increasing risks.  The  investment in cyber investigation and Homeland security will result in
essential identification, investigation, mitigation,  and deterrence  of risks  and  acts of  harm,
disruption, theft or  terror  against  EPA's resources, intellectual  property,   and network
infrastructure that could  compromise public safety and  personal property.  Analyzing intruded
systems  along with known  national  intelligence data will  allow the OIG to help the Agency
determine if systems are under attack, what key information has been exfiltrated, understand and
anticipate acts of intelligence gathering to recommend risk reduction techniques and products to
EPA as well as other federal law enforcement agencies, and to pursue judicial remedies.

The Inspector  General  has submitted comments setting forth the Inspector General's conclusion
that this  Budget's request for the Office of Inspector "would substantially inhibit the Inspector
General  from  performing the duties of the office"  under  Section 6(f)(3)(E)  of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as  amended.  A copy  of the Inspector General's official statement to the
Director of OMB is included in the Appendix section  of the congressional justification.
                                           653

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Buildings and Facilities

Resource Summary Table	656
Program Projects in B&F	656
Program Area: Homeland Security	657
   Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	658
Program Area: Operations and Administration	660
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	661
                                        654

-------
655

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                      APPROPRIATION: Building and Facilities
                               Resource Summary Table
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)




Building and Facilities
Budget Authority
Total Workyears


FY 2010
Enacted

$37,001.0
0.0


FY 2010
Actuals

$39,548.8
0.0

FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$37,001.0
0.0


FY 2012
Pres Budget

$41,969.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

$4,968.0
0.0
                        Bill Language: Buildings and Facilities

For construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities of,  or for  use by,  the  Environmental  Protection Agency,$41,969,000,  to  remain
available until expended. Note.  — A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not
enacted at the time  the budget was prepared; therefore,  this account is operating under a
continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the
annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

                               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 2010
Enacted

$8,070.0

$28,931.0
$28,931.0
$37,001.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$9,652.1

$29,896.7
$29,896.7
$39,548.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$8,070.0

$28,931.0
$28,931.0
$37,001.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget

$8,038.0

$33,931.0
$33,931.0
$41,969.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

($32.0)

$5,000.0
$5,000.0
$4,968.0
                                         656

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
              657

-------
                     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 2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$6,300.3
$593.0
$9,652.1
$1,194.0
$17,739.4
3.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$5,978.0
$579.0
$8,038.0
$1,172.0
$15,767.0
3.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($391.0)
($14.0)
($32.0)
($22.0)
($459.0)
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 in the event of an emergency to help safeguard staff 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to mitigate vulnerabilities, in accordance with the Department of
Justice,   United States Marshals Service,  Vulnerability  Assessment of Federal  Facilities
guidelines,  at its 175  facilities nationwide.   Additionally,  the  Agency  will  ensure that new
construction, new leases, and major modernization projects meet federal physical security
requirements, expand or  realign  existing laboratories for homeland security support activities,
and protect critical infrastructures.  The Agency also will continue to implement the Smart Card
program  through upgrading  or replacing physical access  control systems and  the  ancillary
infrastructure.
                                          658

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports  multiple  strategic  objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$32.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604  and 629).
                                           659

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   660

-------
                                                  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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$310,238.8
$72,841.7
$29,896.7
$871.9
$489.4
$76,052.0
$490,390.5
410.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$324,965.0
$76,521.0
$33,931.0
$916.0
$536.0
$81,431.0
$518,300.0
408.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,727.0
$3,603.0
$5,000.0
$12.0
$31.0
$2,949.0
$21,322.0
-2.6
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 costing more than $85 thousand must use B&F funding.
Deferring maintenance often increases the eventual cost of maintenance projects and may worsen
other repair issues.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  B&F  resources  will be  used for facility-related  construction  and repair  and
improvement  (R&I) of EPA's real  estate inventory.  EPA's  inventory includes WWII era
buildings, such as research facilities (most being 30 or more years old) that have been modified
to meet evolving research requirements and other programmatic needs, and which continue to
deteriorate with time. Good  stewardship practices ensure that physical conditions, functionality,
and research capabilities are  not compromised.

In addition, resources will be used to comply with various requirements and Agency goals set out
in Executive  Orders (EO)  13514 and  134231, the Energy  Policy  Act of 2005, the Energy

1 Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3514/. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance; and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/. Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management.
                                           661

-------
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),  new alternative fuel regulatory requirements,
and regulatory mandates associated with soil and water pesticides testing. The Agency will apply
funds to meet Federal facility environmental objectives related to energy efficiency (annual
energy use reductions of three percent per year through FY 2015), water conservation (annual
water use reductions of two percent per year through FY 2020), advanced metering, storm water
management, upgrading 15 percent of EPA's existing real estate portfolio to meet the standards
of "high performance sustainable" green building standards by FY 2015, and reducing fossil fuel
use in new buildings.

Agency Building and Facility projects for FY 2012 include:

    •   National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab (NVFEL) Modernization in Ann Arbor,
       MI. This project enables EPA to meet the demands of new science testing and research
       methods. EISA legislation requires the Agency to begin testing 4Wheel Drive vehicles by
       2011 and heavy duty vehicles soon thereafter. Only by making significant modifications
       to the NVFEL Lab  will the Air and Radiation program be able to meet these new testing
       requirements while  still maintaining their other mandated testing programs.

    •   Andrew   W.   Breidenbach  Environmental   Research   Center  (AWBERC)
       Infrastructure  Replacement Project Phase  5, the final phase  of the mechanical
       system replacement. This project  will provide all new fume hoods  and  mechanical fans
       and ductwork which will serve the AWBERC facility for the next 30 years.  It also will
       renovate outdated casework and laboratory systems to meet current research functions of
       the Agency.

    •   Build-out of the Region 9 new office lease. The Agency has set aside funds for mission-
       related improvements of the new Regional office in San Francisco such as conferencing
       facilities, emergency operations center, teleworking center, public information center and
       library, as well  as  the use of commissioning and  other  energy and  water reduction
       strategies which are not  included in GSA's standard office build-out allowance, but
       which are necessary for Region 9 to carry out its environmental mission.

    •   Renovations at Research Triangle Park (RTP), NC, Main Laboratory. This project
       will reallocate lab and office space to allow researchers in the Reproductive Toxicology
       Division to move out of a leased facility and into labs adjacent to their fellow researchers.
       This move will save the Agency over $2 million annually in rent and utility costs and will
       pay back in ten years.

    •   Retrofitting  the  air  handling  system  and  infrastructure in  a wing  of  the
       Environmental Effects Research Lab  in Narragansett, RI. The  current air handling
       system is at the end of its useful  life and will potentially impact science  research and the
       health and safety of staff. The required additional funds will permit  continuity in quality
       research by the Program and Regional Offices so as to  comply  with regulatory and
       enforcement missions. This project also will reduce energy usage  to help the Agency
       meet its target of 3% energy reduction per year pursuant to EO 13514.
                                          662

-------
   •   Design and construction of ground source heat pumps at the Environmental Effects
       Research Lab in Narragansett, RL These projects will reduce energy and utility costs
       as well as allow the Agency to meet the goals described in the  Strategic Sustainability
       Performance Plan, the Agency's plan to implement the requirements of EO 13514.

   •   Replacement of fume hoods and air  handlers at  the Air and Radiation  lab  in
       Montgomery, AL. This project will significantly reduce energy usage.

   •   Improving operating efficiency and  sustaining safe  work environments at facilities
       in Corvallis,  OR, Narragansett, RI, and RTF, NC.  These projects will lower energy
       usage and the  emission of greenhouse gases.

The funding requested is essential to the Agency's ability to comply with the relevant Executive
Orders, EISA, and the Energy Policy Act.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations  Program under the EPM appropriation and can be found in the Performance Four
Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$5,000.0) This investment provides resources for three Agency objectives as described
       in the narrative. First, it helps the  Agency to meet its infrastructure demands associated
       with aging lab facilities and the increasing operations and maintenance needs of EPA-
       owned facilities. Second, these resources will allow the Agency to begin and continue
       work on critical projects designed to assist the Agency in meeting its energy reduction
       and  conservation targets developed in response to EO  13514.  Finally,  these resources
       will  position  the  Agency  to  conduct  highest  priority new science testing  and
       environmental methods that require remodeling or construction of EPA facilities, such as
       investing in the National Vehicle  and Fuel Emissions Lab Modernization initiative to
       accommodate new  or revised compliance and research functions.   Of the  $5 million
       increase to the B&F appropriation, $3.5 million will be utilized for modifications to the
       Ann Arbor, MI lab facility.  The remaining $1.5 million will  address infrastructure
       demands associated with aging facilities and energy conservation activities.

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; Energy Policy Act of 2005; Executive
Orders 10577, 12598, 13150, 13423, and  13514; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil
and Hazardous Materials Response Annex; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive
63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
                                          663

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Superfund

Resource Summary Table	666
Program Projects in Superfund	666
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation	670
   Radiation: Protection	671
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations	673
   Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	674
Program Area: Compliance	679
   Compliance Monitoring	680
Program Area: Enforcement	682
   Environmental Justice	683
   Superfund: Enforcement	685
   Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement	690
   Criminal Enforcement	692
   Enforcement Training	695
   Forensics Support	696
Program Area: Homeland Security	698
   Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection	699
   Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	700
   Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure	704
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach	706
   Exchange Network	707
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	710
   Information Security	711
   IT / Data Management	714
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review	720
   Alternative Dispute Resolution	721
   Legal Advice: Environmental Program	723
Program Area: Operations and Administration	725
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	726
   Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	730
                                        664

-------
   Acquisition Management	732
   Human Resources Management	735
   Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	738
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities	741
   Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities	742
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability	747
   Human Health Risk Assessment	748
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup	751
   Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal	752
   Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness	757
   Superfund: Federal Facilities	760
   Superfund: Remedial	766
   Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies	776
Program Area: Research Land Protection	779
   Research: Land Protection and Restoration	780
Program Area: Research Sustainable Communities	783
   Research: Sustainability	784
                                        665

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                  APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund
                               Resource Summary Table
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted

$1,306,541.0
3,193.3
FY 2010
Actuals

$1,414,791.3
3,070.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$1,306,541.0
3,193.3
FY 2012
Pres Budget

$1,236,231.0
3,071.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

($70,310.0)
-121.4
                    Bill Language: Hazardous Substance Superfund
                             (including transfers of funds)

For  necessary  expenses  to  carry  out  the  Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections lll(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611)  $1,236,231,000, to remain available until expended,
consisting of such sums as are available in  the Trust Fund on September 30, 2011, as authorized
by section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and up
to  $1,236,231,000 as a payment from general revenues to the Hazardous Substance Superfund
for purposes as authorized by section 517(b)  of SARA, as amended: Provided, That funds
appropriated under this heading may be allocated to other Federal agencies in accordance with
section 111 (a) of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading,
$10,009,000 shall be paid to the Office of Inspector General" appropriation to remain available
until  September 30, 2013, and $23,016,000 shall be paid to the  "Science and  Technology"
appropriation to  remain available  until September  30,  2013.  Note.  — A full-year 2011
appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore,
this account is operating under a  continuing resolution  (P.L. 111-242, as  amended).  The
amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

                            Program Projects in Superfund
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Indoor Air and Radiation
Radiation: Protection
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations
FY2010
Enacted

$2,495.0

$9,975.0
FY2010
Actuals

$2,586.2

$9,337.9
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$2,495.0

$9,975.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$2,487.0

$10,009.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($8.0)

$34.0
                                         666

-------
Program Project
Compliance
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Environmental Justice
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Forensics Support
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
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
Exchange Network
FY2010
Enacted

$0.0
$1,216.0
$1,216.0

$795.0
$172,668.0
$10,570.0
$8,066.0
$899.0
$2,450.0
$195,448.0


$198.0
$1,562.0
$1,760.0

$10,798.0
$9,626.0
$33,156.0
$53,580.0
$1,194.0
$56,534.0

$1,433.0
FY2010
Actuals

$14.4
$1,181.8
$1,196.2

$891.0
$174,821.5
$9,196.2
$8,417.3
$756.5
$2,727.0
$196,809.5


$89.6
$1,179.9
$1,269.5

$6,087.1
$5,111.1
$40,360.7
$51,558.9
$1,194.0
$54,022.4

$1,438.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$0.0
$1,216.0
$1,216.0

$795.0
$172,668.0
$10,570.0
$8,066.0
$899.0
$2,450.0
$195,448.0


$198.0
$1,562.0
$1,760.0

$10,798.0
$9,626.0
$33,156.0
$53,580.0
$1,194.0
$56,534.0

$1,433.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$0.0
$1,222.0
$1,222.0

$600.0
$169,844.0
$10,530.0
$8,252.0
$0.0
$2,389.0
$191,615.0


$0.0
$0.0
$0.0

$5,908.0
$5,635.0
$29,119.0
$40,662.0
$1,172.0
$41,834.0

$1,433.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$0.0
$6.0
$6.0

($195.0)
($2,824.0)
($40.0)
$186.0
($899.0)
($61.0)
($3,833.0)


($198.0)
($1,562.0)
($1,760.0)

($4,890.0)
($3,991.0)
($4,037.0)
($12,918.0)
($22.0)
($14,700.0)

$0.0
667

-------
Program Project
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management /
Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental
Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory /
Economic Review
Operations and Administration
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: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
Human Health Risk Assessment
Superfund Cleanup
Superfund: Emergency Response
and Removal
FY2010
Enacted

$785.0
$17,087.0
$17,872.0

$893.0
$746.0
$1,639.0


$44,300.0
$3,397.0
$8,299.0
$22,486.0
$78,482.0
$2,945.0
$24,684.0
$5,580.0
$27,490.0
$139,181.0

$21,264.0

$3,404.0

$202,330.0
FY2010
Actuals

$524.3
$16,498.3
$17,022.6

$863.5
$658.7
$1,522.2


$44,239.0
$2,630.9
$7,633.1
$21,549.0
$76,052.0
$3,240.9
$23,820.8
$4,332.7
$28,192.2
$135,638.6

$22,525.3

$3,169.1

$225,840.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$785.0
$17,087.0
$17,872.0

$893.0
$746.0
$1,639.0


$44,300.0
$3,397.0
$8,299.0
$22,486.0
$78,482.0
$2,945.0
$24,684.0
$5,580.0
$27,490.0
$139,181.0

$21,264.0

$3,404.0

$202,330.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$728.0
$15,352.0
$16,080.0

$927.0
$750.0
$1,677.0


$47,112.0
$3,765.0
$8,282.0
$22,272.0
$81,431.0
$3,243.0
$24,097.0
$7,046.0
$22,252.0
$138,069.0

$17,706.0

$3,342.0

$194,895.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($57.0)
($1,735.0)
($1,792.0)

$34.0
$4.0
$38.0


$2,812.0
$368.0
($17.0)
($214.0)
$2,949.0
$298.0
($587.0)
$1,466.0
($5,238.0)
($1,112.0)

($3,558.0)

($62.0)

($7,435.0)
668

-------
Program Project
Superfund: EPA Emergency
Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other
Federal Agencies
Subtotal, Superfund: Support to
Other Federal Agencies
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
TOTAL, EPA
FY2010
Enacted
$9,632.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$856,080.0
$1,306,541.0
FY2010
Actuals
$9,667.5
$33,605.0
$693,835.2
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$969,522.7
$1,414,791.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$9,632.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$856,080.0
$1,306,541.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$9,263.0
$26,242.0
$574,499.0
$5,858.0
$5,858.0
$810,757.0
$1,236,231.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($369.0)
($5,863.0)
($30,939.0)
($717.0)
($717.0)
($45,323.0)
($70,310.0)
669

-------
Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                 670

-------
                                                                  Radiation: Protection
                                                   Program Area: Indoor Air and Radiation
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                    Objective(s): Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2010
Actuals
$11,433.3
$1,962.1
$2,586.2
$15,981.6
84.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$11,295.0
$2,095.0
$2,495.0
$15,885.0
88.6
FY2012
Pres Budget
$9,629.0
$2,096.0
$2,487.0
$14,212.0
76.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($1,666.0)
$1.0
($8.0)
($1,673.0)
-12.5
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 these sites,  some of which are located  near at-risk  communities.  Finally, the
program  ensures that appropriate technical assistance is provided on remediation approaches for
National  Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  EPA's National Air  and  Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in
Montgomery, Alabama, and Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in
Las  Vegas, Nevada,  will  continue  to provide analytical  support to manage and mitigate
radioactive releases and exposures. These nationally recognized laboratories 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. Both of these laboratories also provide specialized technical
support on-site, including field measurements using unique tools  and  capabilities. In addition,
both laboratories provide data evaluation and assessment,  document review, and field support
through ongoing fixed and mobile capability. Thousands of radiochemical  and mixed  waste
analyses  are performed annually at NAREL on a variety of samples from contaminated sites.
NAREL  is EPA's only laboratory with this in-house mixed waste analytical capability.  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, in-situ
analysis,  and air sampling equipment and expert personnel.
                                          671

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Radiation: Protection program
found under the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance
Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$2.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$10.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes and streamline  activities in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA, as amended by the SARA of 1986.
                                          672

-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations
                       673

-------
                                                 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
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority /
Obligations
Total Workyears


FY 2010
Enacted
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$0.0

$9,975.0
$54,766.0
361.8


FY 2010
Actuals
$49,164.4
$42,238.8
$6,925.6

$9,337.9
$58,502.3
335.5

FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$44,791.0
$44,791.0
$0.0

$9,975.0
$54,766.0
361.8

FY2012
IG
Request
$49,591.0
$49,591.0
$0.0

$11,175.0
$60,766.0
373.8

FY 2012
Pres
Budget
$45,997.0
$45,997.0
$0.0

$10,009.0
$56,006.0
365.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
V.
FY2010
Enacted
$1,206.0
$1,206.0
$0.0

$34.0
$1,240.0
4.0
Program/Project Description:

EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, and investigative 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, promote transparency and enhance public trust by providing
the Agency, the public, and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help
management resolve  risks and challenges, achieve opportunities  for savings,  and implement
actions 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 and contract lab fraud.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in  its efforts to reduce environmental and human health
risks and save taxpayer dollars  by making recommendations  to improve  Superfund program
operations and identify and resolve major management challenges. In FY 2012, the OIG will
focus  on long term safety at Superfund sites,  environmental data used to  support actions and
reported  results,  Superfund claims,  amounts reported in financial  statements,  and  areas
associated with risk, fraud, waste, and cyber intrusions which can erode the public trust placed in
EPA. The OIG will further identify high risk areas and make recommendations to mitigate those
risks and improve operating  efficiency and the security  and trustworthiness of the data within
EPA networks leading to positive environmental impacts and  the cost effective attainment of
                                          674

-------
EPA's goals related to the Superfund program.  Major themes of OIG assignments will include:
assessing the adequacy of internal controls in EPA and its grantees and contractors to protect
resources; project management to ensure that EPA and its grantees and contractors have clear
plans and accountability for performance progress;  enforcement to evaluate whether there is
consistent, adequate and appropriate application of the laws and regulations across jurisdictions
with coordination between federal,  state and local law enforcement activities;  and grants and
contracts to verify that grants are made based upon uniform  risk assessment and capacity to
account and perform, and that contractors perform with integrity and value.

Audits and Evaluations

OIG audits and  evaluations  related  to the Superfund  program will  identify program and
management risks and determine if EPA is 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.  Therefore, the OIG
will review:

   •   the reliability and validity of environmental data EPA receives from third parties;

   •   Agency actions to ensure long-term safety and  appropriate reuse of Superfund sites;

   •   whether required five-year reviews have been completed for Federal Facility Superfund
       sites;

   •   the use of remote sensing data to assess environmental contamination at delisted
       Superfund sites;

   •   the oversight of states' stewardship of land use restrictions and institutional controls;

   •   actions for preventing cost overruns and project delays, including the use of fixed-price
       contracts;

   •   costs claimed by contractors for compliance with contract terms and conditions;

   •   Agency efforts to monitor and reward contractor performance; and

   •   the accuracy of Superfund claims.

The  OIG also will evaluate ways to minimize fraud, waste,  and abuse, and maximize results
achieved from its Superfund contracts and assistance agreements.
                                           675

-------
Investigations

OIG investigations focus on identifying criminal activity pertaining to the Superfund program.
The OIG will conduct investigations into allegations, and seek prosecution of: 1) fraudulent
practices in awarding, performing, 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) contract
laboratory fraud relating to Superfund data, and false claims for erroneous laboratory results that
undermine the bases for Superfund decision-making, regulatory compliance, or enforcement
actions; and 4) intrusions into and attacks against EPA's network supporting Superfund data, as
well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual property or sensitive/proprietary
Superfund  data.  OIG investigations will also pursue civil actions for recovery and restitution of
financial losses, and administrative actions to prevent unscrupulous persons and businesses from
participating in EPA programs.

Special attention will be directed towards identifying the tactics, techniques, and procedures that
are being utilized by cyber criminals to obtain EPA's information for their own geopolitical, geo-
economic,  or geo-environmental motives.  The OIG will directly assist EPA senior leadership as
well as federal  cyber criminal,  counterintelligence, and counterterrorism communities through
collaboration with OIG counterparts in other federal agencies. Analyzing the intruded systems
along with known national intelligence data will allow the OIG to help the Agency determine if
systems are under attack and whether key information has been exfiltrated. It will enable the
OIG to understand and  anticipate  acts of intelligence gathering to recommend  risk reduction
techniques and products  to EPA  and other federal law enforcement agencies,  and to pursue
judicial remedies.

On November  13,  2009, EPA's  Computer Security  Incident  Response  Capability Center
(CSIRC) provided email to  the OIG identifying  14  compromised  computer systems that are
associated with an ongoing OIG investigation. On December 20, 2009, the OIG was provided a
spreadsheet, associated with the  same investigation, which  identified 628 unique EPA computers
attempting  to  communicate with United  States  Computer  Emergency Readiness  Team
(USCERT) reported  suspicious domains.  On January 12, 2010, the Agency reported  1,589
unique EPA computers attempting to communicate with suspicious external computer domains.
By June 2010, the Agency reported that more than 6,000 unique computers were attempting to
communicate with USCERT reported suspicious domains.  These systems extend to every EPA
Regional  office  and Headquarters component and  account for roughly  24 percent of the
Agency's entire computer network, as reported based on methodologies determined by (CSIRC).
Until the OIG has confirmed information to the contrary,  entire reported potential compromise
event must be  considered as a crime scene, subject to  the adherence  of rules for  properly
processing and preserving the scene for evidence of a crime. EPA reported that it was not able to
identify the owners of approximately 10 percent of the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that were
identified as being potentially compromised from within  its own domain IP space. EPA also
reported information related to internet traffic representing a significant amount of data being
exfiltrated from the Agency originating from these potentially compromised systems.  The EPA
is faced with its limitations to effectively respond to these external network threats as reported by
the OIG in the Fiscal Year 2010 Management Challenges report.
                                          676

-------
Follow-up and Policy/Regulatory Analysis

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 keep EPA leadership informed of accomplishments,  apprised of
needed  corrective  actions, and will facilitate  greater accountability for results from  OIG
operations. Oversight  over the Agency  audit management process ensures that action on all
opportunities for and improvements identified through OIG reports are appropriately taken.

Additionally, as directed by the IG Act, the OIG will review and analyze proposed and existing
policies, rules, regulations and legislation to identify vulnerability to waste,  fraud and abuse.
These reviews also consider possible duplication, gaps or  conflicts with existing authority,
leading to recommendations for improvements in their structure, content and application.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance  measures in the Audits, Evaluation, and
Investigations program project under the OIG appropriation.  These measures can also be found
in the Performance Four Year Array.

FY 2012 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$30.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (+$4.0) This change reflects a realignment of OIG contract resources between the IG and
       Superfund appropriations.

Statutory Authority:

Inspector General Act, as amended; Inspector  General Reform Act; SARA; CERCLA.

Inspector General Reform Act:

The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of the Inspector General
Reform Act:

    •   the aggregate budget request from the Inspector General for the operations of the OIG is
       $60,766,000 ($49,591,000 Inspector General; $11,175,000 Superfund Transfer);

    •   the aggregate request in the President's Budget for the operations of the OIG is $56,006
       ($45,997,000 Inspector General; $10,009,000 Superfund Transfer);

    •   the portion of the aggregate request in the Present's Budget needed for training is
       $900,000;
                                          677

-------
   "I certify as the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency that the amount I
   have requested for training satisfies all OIG training needs for FY 2012".

The  OIG's  requested budget  for FY  2012 represents a $6,000,000  increase over the OIG's
portion of the FY 2010 Enacted Budget ($54,766,000 to $60,766,000).  The additional funding is
necessary for the following reasons:

Congress and  the President have expressed concerns about the increasing vulnerability of the
Federal IT infrastructure to timely address known and potential cyber security threats requiring
highly specialized detection, prevention and enforcement skills and tools.

Additional resources in FY 2012 are needed to strengthen the OIG's ability to investigate cyber
attacks or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation strategy.   The  current OIG cyber
security investigative team's limited resources and specialty skills are impeding the OIG's ability
to effectively  investigate cyber attacks  or develop and deploy a prevention and mitigation
strategy to assist the Agency in securing their networks from attack and address the current and
increasing risks.  The  investment  in cyber investigation and Homeland security will result in
essential identification, investigation,  mitigation,  and deterrence  of risks  and  acts  of  harm,
disruption,  theft or  terror  against  EPA's  resources, intellectual   property,  and network
infrastructure that could  compromise public safety and personal property.  Analyzing intruded
systems along with known  national intelligence data will  allow the  OIG to help the Agency
determine if systems are under attack, what key information has been exfiltrated, understand and
anticipate acts of intelligence gathering to recommend risk reduction techniques and products to
EPA as well as other federal law enforcement agencies, and to pursue judicial remedies.

The Inspector  General  has submitted comments setting forth the Inspector General's conclusion
that this Budget's request for the Office of Inspector General  "would substantially inhibit the
Inspector  General from  performing the  duties of the  office" under  Section 6(f)(3)(E) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.  A copy of the Inspector General's official statement
to the Director of OMB is included in the  Appendix section of the congressional justification.
                                           678

-------
Program Area: Compliance
          679

-------
                                                                Compliance Monitoring
                                                              Program Area: Compliance
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY2010
Actuals
$97,937.7
$0.0
$1,181.8
$99,119.5
593.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY2012
Pres Budget
$119,648.0
$138.0
$1,222.0
$121,008.0
617.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$20,248.0
$138.0
$6.0
$20,392.0
5.3
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, 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
and 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 2012 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 2012, the Compliance
Monitoring program will include support  and ongoing enhancements to ICIS for continued
support of the federal Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 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 2012, the  Superfund  portion of this
program for ICIS-related work is $190 thousand.

EPA also will continue to make Superfund-related compliance monitoring information available
to the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-line (ECHO)  website1.  This
 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/
                                          680

-------
site provides communities with information on compliance status. EPA will continue to develop
additional tools and data for public use.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program also supports  performance results in  the  Compliance Monitoring
Program Project under EPM and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab  11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted  (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$24.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •    (-$4.0) This decrease will reduce system support for monitoring  Superfund compliance.

    •   (-$14.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes and  streamline  activities in both administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA as  amended; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA;  TSCA;  EPCRA;  RLBPHRA; FIFRA;
ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
                                          681

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
           682

-------
                                                                  Environmental Justice
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$7,090.0
$795.0
$7,885.0
32.9
FY 2010
Actuals
$9,567.4
$891.0
$10,458.4
32.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$7,090.0
$795.0
$7,885.0
32.9
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$7,397.0
$600.0
$7,997.0
32.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$307.0
($195.0)
$112.0
-0.7
Program Project Description:

EPA is committed to identifying and addressing the health and environmental burdens faced by
communities disproportionately impacted by pollution.  The EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ)
program facilitates EPA's efforts to engage communities in key decision-making processes and
to integrate environmental justice considerations in EPA programs, policies, and activities.  The
Superfund portion of the program focuses on issues that affect communities at or near Superfund
sites.  The EJ program complements and enhances  community outreach, like the Community
Engagement Initiative and other work done under the Superfund program at affected sites.  The
Agency also supports state and tribal environmental justice programs and conducts outreach and
technical assistance to states, local governments and stakeholders on environmental  justice
issues.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to enhance the integration of environmental justice principles
into Agency decision-making  process  and collaborative problem-solving initiatives  in the
Superfund  program.   The  program conducts  and supports  outreach to  "open its doors" to
communities of color, Native Americans, the poor,  and other historically underrepresented
groups. It also promotes active engagement of community groups, other federal agencies, states,
local  governments and tribal governments to  recognize,  support, and  advance  environmental
protection  and  public  health  for disproportionately impacted  minority  and  low  income
communities.  The program will  guide  EPA's efforts to empower  communities to  protect
themselves from environmental harms and to build healthy and sustainable neighborhoods that
enable disadvantaged  groups to participate in the new green economy through financial and
technical assistance.  The program  will partner with  other Agency programs to create scientific
analytical  methods, a legal  foundation,  and public engagement  practices  that  enable the
incorporation of environmental justice considerations in EPA's regulatory and policy decisions.
2 For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/index.html
                                          683

-------
Finally, the EJ  program will support Agency  efforts  to  strengthen internal mechanisms  to
integrate environmental justice including communications,  training, performance management,
and accountability measures.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives that benefit disproportionately
impacted minority,  low-income, and tribal populations.  Currently,  there are no performance
measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$14.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-0.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •    (-$206.0) This change reflects a redirection from Superfund to EPM dollars (no net gain
       in program budget).

    •   (-$3.0) This  reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Executive Order 12898; CERCLA, as amended.
                                           684

-------
                                                               Superfund: Enforcement
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$172,668.0
$172,668.0
949.9
FY2010
Actuals
$174,821.5
$174,821.5
914.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$172,668.0
$172,668.0
949.9
FY2012
Pres Budget
$169,844.0
$169,844.0
919.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($2,824.0)
($2,824.0)
-30.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's Superfund  Enforcement program protects  communities by  ensuring  that responsible
parties conduct  cleanups,  preserving  federal dollars  for  sites where there are no  viable
contributing parties. The Superfund Enforcement program ensures prompt site cleanup and uses
an "enforcement first" approach that maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties in
performing and paying for cleanups. In both the remedial and removal programs, the Superfund
Enforcement program initiates civil, judicial,  and administrative  site remediation cases, and
provides  legal  and technical  enforcement support  on Superfund  enforcement  actions and
emerging issues.  The Superfund Enforcement program also develops waste cleanup enforcement
policies and provides guidance and tools that clarify  potential environmental cleanup liability,
with specific attention to the reuse  and revitalization of contaminated properties. Ensuring that
responsible parties clean up sites reduces direct human exposure  to hazardous pollutants and
contaminants, provides  for  long-term  human  health  protections  and  ultimately  makes
contaminated properties available for reuse.

EPA negotiates cleanup agreements with Potentially  Responsible  Parties (PRPs) at hazardous
waste sites and, where negotiations fail, either takes enforcement actions to require cleanup or
expends Superfund appropriated dollars to remediate the sites.  In  some cases, EPA takes both
actions. When EPA uses appropriated dollars, the Superfund Enforcement program takes action
against any viable 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
cleanup and to recover appropriated  monies spent on cleanup.  In tandem  with this  approach,
EPA has implemented various reforms to increase fairness, reduce  transaction costs, promote
economic development, and make sites available for appropriate reuse. 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
remedies.

The  Agency promotes the "polluter pays" principle, cleaning  up more sites and preserving
appropriated  dollars for sites without viable PRPs.  Since the program's inception, EPA has
achieved more than eight dollars in private party cleanup commitments and cost recovery  for
                                          685

-------
every dollar  spent by EPA on Superfund civil enforcement  costs.   The cumulative value of
private party  commitments is almost $33 billion ($27.1 billion  for cleanup work and $5.6 billion
in cost recovery).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Throughout FY 2012,  the  Superfund Enforcement program will ensure PRP participation in
cleanups while promoting fairness in the enforcement process and will continue to recover costs
from PRPs  when  EPA expends appropriated  funds.   The  Agency will maximize  PRP
participation  by reaching a settlement or taking an enforcement action by the time a remedial
action starts for at least 99 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 thousand. The Agency also will
continue efforts to recover past costs at  sites where total costs are below $200 thousand in the
most cost-efficient manner possible.  In  addition the Agency will obtain commitments to clean
up 1.5 billion cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a result of concluded
CERCLA and RCRA corrective actions enforcement actions by 2015.

In FY 2012, the Agency will negotiate remedial design/remedial action cleanup agreements and
removal agreements at  contaminated properties  to  address  contamination  impacting local
communities.  When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover the
associated cleanup costs from the PRPs.  If future work remains at a site, recovered funds  may
be placed in a site-specific special account pursuant to the agreement.  Special accounts are sub-
accounts within EPA's Superfund Trust Fund. EPA uses  special account resources to finance
site-specific CERCLA response actions at the site for which the account was established.  The
Agency will continue its efforts to establish and maximize the effectiveness of special accounts
to facilitate cleanup by improving tracking and planning for special account funds.  As of the end
of FY 2010,  1,023 site-specific special accounts were established and nearly $3.7 billion were
deposited  into  special  accounts  (including  earned interest).   The EPA  has   obligated
approximately  $1.85 billion from  special accounts to finance  site response actions and has
developed multi-year plans to use the remaining funds as expeditiously as possible.

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
Enforcement  program will  help oversee the implementation  and enforcement of institutional
controls as part of site remedies, focusing particularly on sites  where construction of engineered
remedies is complete.

In FY 2012, the Agency will  provide  the DOJ with $24.9  million, through an Interagency
Agreement, to provide support for EPA's Superfund Enforcement program through such actions
as negotiating consent decrees with PRPs, preparing judicial actions to compel PRP cleanup 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
                                           686

-------
of current cases with DOJ.  The program also ensures that EPA meets cost recovery statute of
limitation deadlines, resolves cases, issues bills for oversight and makes collections in a timely
manner.   By  pursuing  cost recovery  settlements, the program promotes  the  principle that
polluters should either perform  or pay for cleanups, which preserves appropriated  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.

During FY 2012, the Office  of Chief Financial  Officer (OCFO) will continue the  financial
management aspects of Superfund cost recovery and the collection of related debt to the federal
government.   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.  OCFO 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 allocation rates to be applied
to direct costs incurred  by EPA for site cleanup.  OCFO  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 cleanup efforts by responsible parties as
stipulated in the terms of settlement agreements.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(078) Address all
Statute of Limitations
cases for Superfund
sites with unaddressed
total past costs equal to
or greater than
$200,000.
FY 2010
Target



100



FY 2010
Actual



100



FY2011
CR
Target



100



FY 2012
Target



100



Units



Percent



Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(285) Reach a
settlement or take an
enforcement action
before the start of a
remedial action at 99
percent of Superfund
sites having viable,
liable responsible
parties other than the
federal government .
FY 2010
Target




95




FY 2010
Actual




98




FY2011
CR
Target




95




FY 2012
Target




99




Units




Percent




                                          687

-------
Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(4 17) Obtain
commitments to clean
up 300 million cubic
yards of contaminated
soil and groundwater
media as a result of
concluded CERCLA
and RCRA corrective
action enforcement
actions.
FY 2010
Target









FY 2010
Actual









FY2011
CR
Target









FY 2012
Target




300




Units




Million
Cubic Yards




FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •    (+$2,627.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
         FTE.

    •    (-12.0 FTE) This  decrease  reflects a  realignment  of total FTEs to  better reflect
         utilization rates.

    •    (-$2,793.07  -18.0 FTE) This reduction  will decrease resources associated  with PRP
         searches and settlement activity that 18.0 FTE could do. The reduced resources include
         $2,520.0 associated payroll for 18.0 FTE.

    •    (-$316.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
         footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •    (-$224.0) The reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such
         as  email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization,  and
         others totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by
         increased mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for
         FTE.

    •    (-$500.0) This decrease  reflects a reduction  to CERCLA litigation support provided
         through an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Justice. The reduction is
         commensurate with reduction in EPA's level of effort. Note that the total IA reduction
         for DOJ CERCLA litigation support is $700.0 because $200.0 also is reflected as part
         of the Accountable Government Initiative.

    •    (-$801.0) This reflects a  reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
         This  initiative targets  certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
         including advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
         continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
         and programmatic areas to achieve these savings. This reduction also includes $200.0
         to the IA for DOJ CERCLA litigation support.
                                          688

-------
    •   (-$596.0) This reflects a realignment of IT and telecommunications resources.

    •   (-$221.0) This  decrease reflects a reduction in  contracts supporting documentation
        packaging for the Cost Recovery effort.

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.
                                        689

-------
                                               Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$10,570.0
$10,570.0
67.5
FY2010
Actuals
$9,196.2
$9,196.2
54.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$10,570.0
$10,570.0
67.5
FY2012
Pres Budget
$10,530.0
$10,530.0
59.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($40.0)
($40.0)
-8.2
Program Project Description:

The  Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that sites with federal entities
performing  Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,  Compensation,  and  Liability  Act
(CERCLA) responses and CERCLA sites with federal ownership are monitored and appropriate
enforcement responses are pursued.  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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Pursuant to  CERCLA  Section  120, EPA  will  enter into Interagency Agreements (lAs) with
responsible federal entities to ensure protective cleanup at a timely pace. Priority areas for FY
2012 include ensuring that: 1) all federal facility sites on the National Priorities List have lAs,
which provide enforceable schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup; 2) these lAs are
monitored for  compliance;  3)  formerly utilized defense  sites  with  federal involvement  are
evaluated for action;  and 4) federal sites that are transferred to new owners are transferred in an
environmentally responsible manner. EPA  also will monitor milestones in existing lAs, resolve
disputes, take  appropriate  enforcement actions to address  noncompliance,  and oversee  all
remedial work being conducted at federal facilities.  EPA also works to ensure that required
legally  enforceable  institutional controls  and  five-year  review requirements are in place at
Superfund sites to ensure  the  long-term  protectiveness of  cleanup  actions.   EPA  also will
continue its work with affected agencies  to resolve outstanding policy issues relating to  the
cleanup of federal facilities.

The  Superfund  Federal Facilities Enforcement program works closely with EPA's Federal
Facilities Cleanup and Reuse programs to support their strategic programmatic goals to clean up
federal contaminated sites and make them safer for their communities and available for other
economically productive uses.
                                          690

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program  also supports performance results in the Superfund Enforcement
Program Project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$337.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-8.2 FTE) This decrease reflects  a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$339.0) This decrease reflects a  reduction in contract support for compliance assistance
       and cleanup oversight activities at federal facilities.

    •   (-$8.0) This reflects  a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel,  general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •  (-$30.0) The  decrease in  travel costs reflects an effort  to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA;  SBLRBRERA;  DBCRA; Defense  Authorization   Amendments;  BRAC;  PPA;
CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; DRAA; SOW A; Executive Orders 12241,  12656
and 12580.
                                          691

-------
                                                                   Criminal Enforcement
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                  Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$57,703.0
291.8
FY2010
Actuals
$49,043.2
$8,417.3
$57,460.5
284.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$49,637.0
$8,066.0
$57,703.0
291.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$51,345.0
$8,252.0
$59,597.0
296.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$1,708.0
$186.0
$1,894.0
4.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's 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 or criminal behavior on the part of the violator. The program protects
human health and the environment by providing federal, state and local prosecutors with the
investigative, forensic and technical evidence needed to successfully prosecute these violations
and associated violations of Title  18  of the United States Code such as fraud,  conspiracy and
obstruction  of justice.   Successful  prosecutions  deter other potential  parties, eliminate  the
incentive for companies to "pay to pollute," and help ensure that businesses that follow the rules
do not face unfair competition from those that break the rules.

These efforts support Superfund-related prosecutions primarily by the Department of Justice's
Environmental Crimes Section and the United States Attorneys, but occasionally by state, tribal
and  local  prosecutors.   Special  Agents  (criminal investigators) evaluate leads; interview
witnesses and suspects; and review documents and data from environmental,  inspection and
other databases and files.  Investigators remain involved during prosecutions, testifying in court
and assisting in securing plea agreements  or planning sentencing conditions that will require
defendants to undertake projects to improve environmental conditions or develop environmental
management systems to enhance performance.

EPA  Special Agents also participate in task forces with other federal law enforcement agencies
as well as state and local law officials and participate in specialized training at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, GA and other locations.  These joint efforts
and training help build state, local, and tribal environmental enforcement expertise, which helps
them protect their communities and offer valuable leads to EPA's program.3
 For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html
                                           692

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  the Criminal Enforcement program will continue to investigate and assist in the
prosecution  of Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation,  and Liability Act
(CERCLA)  - related  cases  with significant  environmental,  human health,  and deterrence
impacts.  The program has completed its three year hiring  strategy to increase the number of
Special Agents to 200 by the end of FY 2010. The Criminal Enforcement program continues to
"tier" significant cases based upon categories of human health and environmental impacts (e.g.,
death, serious injury, human exposure, remediation), release and discharge characteristics (e.g.,
hazardous or toxic pollutants, continuing violations), and subject characteristics (e.g., national
corporation, recidivist violator).

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 Superfund violations as effectively as possible.  Enforcement is accomplished by employing
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 that allow 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.  In FY 2012, criminal enforcement will  continue to  use management oversight
controls and national  policies to ensure that violators  in similar circumstances receive similar
treatment under  federal  environmental laws.    Consistency is  promoted  by evaluating all
investigations  from the national perspective, overseeing all investigations to  ensure compliance
with program 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 by developing,  implementing and  periodically
reviewing and revising policies and programs.

In FY 2012, the program will continue to use data from the electronic Criminal Case Reporting
System (CCRS).  Information associated with all closed criminal enforcement cases will be used
to systematically  compile a profile of criminal  cases,  including the extent to which the cases
support Agencywide, program-specific or regional enforcement priorities.  The program also will
seek to deter Superfund-related 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 and
continue  to use  the  fugitive website4.   The  fugitive website  enlists the  public and law
enforcement agencies help in apprehending defendants who have fled the country or are in
hiding to avoid prosecution for alleged environmental crimes or sentencing for crimes for which
they have been found guilty. Since the site was established in FY 2009, five fugitives have been
captured, and two more surrendered to law enforcement authorities.
4For more information visit: (http://www. epa. go v/fugiti ves/)
                                          693

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under  this program  also  supports performance  results  in  the  Criminal  Enforcement
Program Project under EPM and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$316.0) This increase reflects the  recalculation of base workforce costs for  existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$130.0) This decrease will reduce the level of lower priority activities of investigative
       support for criminal prosecutions,  as well  as collaborative investigative efforts and
       training  with partners in  state and tribal governments and  other law enforcement
       agencies.

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).
                                          694

-------
                                                                 Enforcement Training
                                                             Program Area: Enforcement
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$3,278.0
$899.0
$4,177.0
20.8
FY2010
Actuals
$3,220.0
5756.5
$3,976.5
18.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$3,278.0
$899.0
$4,177.0
20.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($3,278.0)
($899.0)
($4,177.0)
-20.8
Program Project Description:

The Pollution Prosecution Act of 1990 requires EPA to provide environmental compliance and
enforcement training nationwide through the National Enforcement Training  Institute (NETI).
The Enforcement Training program oversees the design and delivery of core and specialized
enforcement courses, through NETI1,  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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, funding under the Enforcement Training was eliminated. There were reductions to
NETI's  classroom  training and the  remaining resources supporting web-based training was
transferred to the Compliance Monitoring program.

Performance Targets:

Currently, there are no specific performance measures for this program project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-$899.07 -5.2 FTE) This reduction streamlines NETI by eliminating Superfund funding
      for classroom training.  The reduced resources include $708.0 in associated payroll for
      5.2 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA;  RLBPHRA;  RCRA; CWA;  SOW A; CAA;  TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
                                         695

-------
                                                                        Forensics Support
                                                                Program Area: Enforcement
                                                       Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                  Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$17,801.0
105.2
FY2010
Actuals
$15,245.3
$2,727.0
$17,972.3
101.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$15,351.0
$2,450.0
$17,801.0
105.2
FY2012
Pres Budget
$15,326.0
$2,389.0
$17,715.0
105.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($25.0)
($61.0)
($86.0)
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  as well  as technical
expertise for Agency compliance efforts.  EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) is  a fully accredited environmental  forensics center under  International  Standards
Organization (ISO) 17025,  the  main standard used by testing and  calibration laboratories, as
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)5. Laboratory accreditation is the
recognition of technical competence through a third-party  assessment of a laboratory's quality,
administrative,  and technical systems. It also provides the general public and users of laboratory
services  a means of identifying those  laboratories which have  successfully demonstrated
compliance with established international standards.   NEIC's accreditation standard has been
customized to cover both laboratory and field activities.

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.  The program also 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.6

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Efforts to stay at the forefront  of environmental enforcement in FY 2012 will include continuing
use of customized laboratory methods to identify potentially responsible parties  (PRPs).   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.
 Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, National Academy of Sciences, 2009, available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php7record id= 12589
6 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html
                                           696

-------
In FY 2012, NEIC will continue to function under rigorous ISO requirements for environmental
data measurements to maintain its accreditation.  The program also will  continue to utilize
advanced  technologies to support field  measurement and  laboratory analyses, as  well  as
identification of pollution sources at abandoned Superfund and other waste sites.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the objective to improve compliance under Goal 5. Currently,
there are no performance measures for this specific program project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$14.0) This decrease reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$36.0) This represents a reduction to resources that support the operations of NEIC and
       maintenance for its laboratory instruments.

    •   (-$11.0) The  decrease in  travel costs reflects  an effort  to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA; EPCRA.
                                          697

-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
              698

-------
                                  Homeland Security:  Critical Infrastructure Protection
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY2010
Actuals
$6,805.1
$20,954.9
$1,269.5
$29,029.5
46.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$6,836.0
$23,026.0
$1,760.0
$31,622.0
49.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$1,065.0
$11,379.0
$0.0
$12,444.0
25.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($5,771.0)
($11,647.0)
($1,760.0)
($19,178.0)
-24.0
Program Project Description:

This program includes Superfund activities that coordinate and support protection of the nation's
critical public infrastructure from terrorist threats.  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 has direct responsibilities pursuant to the National Response Framework (NRF), Emergency
Support Functions 10 and 13, and the Oil and Hazardous Materials Annex.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

There is no request for this program in the Superfund appropriation in FY 2012.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports  multiple strategic objectives.  There are no performance
measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$1,760.0 /  -8.2 FTE)  EPA will  not  need  to maintain  separate  capacity to support
       environmental  criminal investigations and training for terrorism related investigations.
       This reduction reflects the  increased  capacity  of other agencies  to  handle the
       environmental  forensics work  associated  with potential  homeland  security related
       incidents. This reduction includes $1,418.0 in associated payroll for 8.2 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

CERCLA, as amended; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act
of2002.
                                          699

-------
                              Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
                                                        Program Area: Homeland Security
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land

                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                      Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY 2010
Actuals
$4,264.2
$37,697.9
$51,558.9
$93,521.0
176.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$3,423.0
$41,657.0
$53,580.0
$98,660.0
174.2
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$30,078.0
$40,662.0
$70,740.0
170.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($3,423.0)
($11,579.0)
($12,918.0)
($27,920.0)
-3.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's  Homeland  Security Emergency  Preparedness and  Response  program  develops  and
maintains  an agencywide capability to respond to large-scale catastrophic incidents with an
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.  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.

Existing science and technology information and the current approaches  for generating  that
information  must evolve to address the increasing complexity of 21st century  environmental
challenges. In FY 2012, EPA will  strengthen its planning and delivery of science by realigning
its current research program  projects into a new structure that will look at  problems from a
systems perspective  to develop a deeper understanding  of our environmental challenges  and
inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals. Within that structure, the Homeland Security
Research Program will continue to improve research, development, and technical support for
potential threats and response protocols.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, efforts to strengthen the capability  to respond to multiple incidents will concentrate
on four core areas:   1) maintaining a highly skilled,  well-trained,  and  equipped response
workforce that has the capacity to respond to simultaneous incidents as well  as threats involving
                                          700

-------
WMD substances;  2) developing decontamination options, methods, and protocols to ensure that
the nation can  quickly recover from nationally  significant incidents; 3) ensuring that current
laboratory equipment maintains the capability to analyze Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) fixed
and  mobile  samples while  working to  establish  EPA biological  agent  laboratory analyses
capability; and  4) implementing the EPA's National Approach to Response (NAR) to effectively
manage EPA's emergency response assets during large-scale activations.

EPA activities in support of these efforts include the following:

    •   Maintain the skills of EPA's On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) through specialized training,
       exercises,  and equipment.  In FY 2012, EPA and its federal,  state,  local,  and tribal
       homeland  response partners  will  continue  to  participate  in exercises and  trainings
       designed to test and improve EPA's response capabilities.

    •   Sustain the Agency's responder base during large-scale catastrophic incidents by training
       volunteers of the Response Support Corps (RSC) and members of Incident Management
       Teams (EVITs).  These volunteers provide critical support to Headquarters and Regional
       Emergency Operations Centers  and assist with operations in  the field.   To  ensure
       technical proficiency, this cadre  of response personnel requires initial training and yearly
       refresher training to include opportunities to participate in exercises.  Depending upon the
       level  and  complexity  of the  assigned position,  volunteers also  may participate  in
       workshops, health and safety training, medical monitoring, and equipment acquisition, as
       necessary. The focus is on their assigned  responsibilities during  a response, interactions
       with   the   emergency  response  program   personnel,   and  understanding  lines  of
       communication within an EVIT.

    •   Maintain and operate the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN) and
       existing fixed CWA labs and  maintain  the capability of two Portable High-Throughput
       Integrated Laboratory Identification Systems  (PHILIS) units.  The Agency will continue
       to participate with the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks, maintaining a
       laboratory compendium of federal,  state, and commercial capabilities, and maintain a
       chemical surety program.

    •   Operate the Environmental Response Laboratory Network (ERLN) in Headquarters and
       Regional offices to provide lab analysis  for routine and emergency response and removal
       operations, including  a terrorist attack.

    •   Continue to develop  and validate environmental sampling, analysis, and human health
       risk assessment methods for known and emerging biological  threat  agents.   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.
                                          701

-------
   •   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.

   •   Continue to  maintain  one Airborne  Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection
       Technology (ASPECT) aircraft.  The EPA ASPECT provides direct assistance to first
       responders by detecting chemical and radiological vapors, plumes, and clouds.

   •   Maintain the Emergency  Management Portal  (EMP) modules.   EMP  ties together
       prevention,  preparedness,  and  response  information  to allow  EPA's  emergency
       management  community access to information they need to respond to and efficiently
       store data from large and small sites. The Decontamination Portfolio resides in the EMP.

   •   Conduct WMD  decontamination  courses for EPA OSCs, Special Teams,  and RSC
       personnel to improve decontamination preparedness for CBR agents.

   •   Maintain Environmental Response Team  (ERT) personnel and equipment in a state of
       readiness for response  to potential  homeland security incidents. It also will  maintain
       capacity to provide required health and safety and response readiness training.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this  program supports multiple  strategic objectives.   Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$3.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-$12,000.0)  This reflects  a decrease  to  the Agency's  homeland  security emergency
       response and  preparedness program.  Existing agency  preparedness will be maintained.
       Planned training and equipment upgrades may be delayed  or modified.

   •   (-$647.0)   This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services,  printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities  in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (+$14.0) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure resources such as
       critical equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts, and general expenses that are
       proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities.

   •   (-$289.0) This decrease in travel costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          702

-------
   •   (-7.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$1.0) This reflects realignments and corrections to resources for telephone, Local Area
       Network (LAN), and other telecommunications & IT security requirements.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation,  and Liability  Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq. - Sections 104, 105, and 106.
                                         703

-------
                     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
FY2010
Enacted
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY2010
Actuals
$6,300.3
$593.0
$9,652.1
$1,194.0
$17,739.4
3.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$6,369.0
$593.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,226.0
3.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$5,978.0
$579.0
$8,038.0
$1,172.0
$15,767.0
3.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($391.0)
($14.0)
($32.0)
($22.0)
($459.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

This program's  activities  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.

EPA's policy is to  have a comprehensive continuity of operations program  (COOP) in place to
ensure continuity of its essential functions under all emergency circumstances. Under Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 20  (HSPD-20),  EPA  is  required to designate  an Agency
Continuity Coordinator charged with ensuring EPA's continuity program is consistent with
federal policies. The Solid Waste and Emergency Response Program's Emergency Management
program is responsible for developing EPA's Continuity Plan.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to follow the requirements outlined in the Department of
Homeland  Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)  Federal  Continuity
Directive (FCD)  1. FCD 1 requires EPA to develop a continuity plan that ensures its ability to
accomplish its mission-essential functions  from an alternative  site, with limited staffing and
without access to resources available during normal activities.

Consistent with a review of its needs and priorities pursuant to the directive, EPA will undertake
a number of activities, including but not limited to the following:
                                          704

-------
   •   Conduct annual reviews of the Headquarters and Regional COOP plans and update the
       plans as needed to reflect current operations;

   •   Conduct exercises of COOP deployment, 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 2012, EPA plans to support training activities
       and participate in  a major interagency COOP exercise  and an EPA internal  COOP
       exercise with headquarters and regional offices; and

   •   Show progress toward meeting the requirements of National Communications System
       Directive (NCSD) 3-10 through the purchase, installation, and maintenance of secure
       communications equipment.

Performance Targets:

Work  under this program supports  multiple  strategic  objectives.   Currently, there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •     (-$22.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
         This  initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
         including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and  supplies.  EPA will
         continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
         and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Public Health  Service Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq. - Section 2801; Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et  seq. -Sections
104,  105, and 106.
                                          705

-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
                    706

-------
                                                                      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 2010
Enacted
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$18,457.0
24.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$17,918.5
$1,438.6
$19,357.1
28.2
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$17,024.0
$1,433.0
$18,457.0
24.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$20,883.0
$1,433.0
$22,316.0
30.4
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$3,859.0
$0.0
$3,859.0
6.4
Program Project Description:

EPA and state,  tribal  and  territorial  partners  reap  tremendous  data management  and
environmental  benefits from  the National  Environmental Information  Exchange  Network
(Network, EN).  The EN is a standards-based, secure information partnership with states, tribes
and other entities to facilitate and streamline  electronic reporting,  sharing,  integration, analysis
and use of environmental data from many different sources to support the Superfund program.

The Central Data Exchange7 (CDX) is the largest component within the EN program.  CDX is
the portal, or electronic gateway, through which  environmental  data  enters the Agency.  It
enables fast,  efficient and more accurate environmental data submissions from state  and local
governments, industry and tribes to EPA. It also provides a set of core services rather than each
Agency program building its own duplicative services.  The reuse of existing central services
like CDX promotes a leaner and  more cost-effective  enterprise architecture for the  Agency,
enables more robust central services and provides  a common way to promote data integration
and sharing with states since CDX serves as EPA's connection to the  EN.  The CDX budget
supports infrastructure for development, testing and  production;  sophisticated hardware  and
software;  data exchange and Web form programs; built-in data  quality checks; standards-setting
projects with states, tribes and territories  for e-reporting; and significant  security and quality
assurance activities. By reducing the IT data management burden on EPA programs, CDX helps
environmental programs focus their resources on enforcement and programmatic work, rather
than data collection and manipulation.

Other tools and services in the EN program include the Facility Registry System (FRS) and the
System of Registries (SoR). The FRS is a widely used source of mapping and environmental
data about facilities. It allows a multimedia display  and integration of environmental information
7 For more information on the Central Data Exchange, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/cdx/
                                           707

-------
keyed to a single or multiple facilities. It offers enormous benefits for enforcement targeting,
homeland security and data integration among disparate datasets as well as a key point of entry
for the  public interested in EPA's  data  stores.  The SoR adds meaning  to  EPA's data and
promotes access,  sharing and understanding of it. The SoR helps environmental professionals
and the public find systems where data is stored, and ensures that those sources are identified and
authentic, and that names, definitions and concepts are available and understandable.

 FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  the EN program will develop services that encourage innovative  data sharing and
analysis while lowering the cost and reporting burden. The program will pilot projects that move
the Network  from a closed partnership of states, tribes and EPA to  a more open platform  of
services that  the  public or third parties  can use to develop tools  and applications to make
environmental data reporting, sharing, and analysis faster, simpler and cheaper.  The EN program
also will increase the amount of critical environmental data flowing, expand the program's role in
sharing data among partners, provide increased business value through reduced burden and build
on prior efforts to provide better data  quality,  timeliness  and accessibility while making the
Network simpler and less costly to implement.  Finally, pending the results of research in 2011,
CDX will move to a public or private "cloud" in order to save money and gain added efficiency
for its customers.

 In FY 2012, CDX will continue to support the Office of Transportation of Air Quality (OTAQ)
 in implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard through several interconnected systems. The
 systems include the OTAQ Registration system, OTAQ Fuels Reporting System, and the EPA
 Moderated Transaction System (EMTS). EMTS is a unique industry government partnership
 that reduces burden and improves efficiency for industry by providing an electronic marketplace
 for transactions of Renewable Identification Numbers as well as traditional computer to
 computer electronic reporting.  CDX also will increase electronic reporting to EPA by meeting
 several new reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

 In FY 2012, work for the following System of Registries systems will continue to support efforts
 to allow greater sharing and better understanding of EPA's data:

    •  The Substance Registry Services will  continue to  catalog  all chemicals and  other
       substances that are tracked or regulated at EPA.

    •  The Registry of EPA Applications  and Databases (READ) inventories EPA data systems.

    •  The Reusable Component Services (RCS) is  a developer's catalog of services (e.g, Web
       services,  XML schema, and code libraries) that promotes cost savings and reuse not just
       at EPA but across the Exchange Network with states and  tribes.

    •  The Data Registry Services (DRS) is a central repository for data dictionaries and code
       sets that  help  system  management,  align  data among different  systems and  ensure
       conformance to data standards.
                                           708

-------
    •   Terminology Services (TS) is the Agency's catalog of terms (e.g., gray water, climate
       change) and vocabularies to support better understanding of data and linking  data that
       might not otherwise be connected in order to promote better analysis.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Exchange Network Program
Project under the EPM appropriation. This measure can also be found in the Four Year Array in
Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   No change in program funding.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information
Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - Sections 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and 3536
and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C.  9606 et seq.  -  Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and  Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401  et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104  and 108 and Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C.  1314 et seq. -  Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. - Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal
Insecticide Fungicide  and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. - Sections 136a - 136y
and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. - Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501
and Safe Drinking Water Act  (SOWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. - Sections  1400,
1401,  1411, 1421,  1431,  1441,  1454 and  1461 and  Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et  seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. - Sections 322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. - Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and
Government Performance and  Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C.  2803 et seq. - Sections  1115,
1116, 1117,  1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501
et seq. - Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40
U.S.C.  1401 et seq. - Sections 5001, 5201, 5301, 5401,  5502,  5601 and 5701and Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. - Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,
112 and 113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552  et seq.  and Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. - Sections 801,  811, 821, 841, 871, 955  and 961;
Privacy Act; Electronic Freedom of Information Act, Security and Accountability of Every
(SAFE) Port Act, Executive Order 13439.  Exchange Network Program funding has been provided
by the annual appropriations for EPA: 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 2006 (Public Law 109-54),
FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5), FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), and FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8).
                                         709

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                    710

-------
                                                                   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
FY2010
Enacted
$5,912.0
$785.0
$6,697.0
15.8
FY2010
Actuals
$5,881.7
$524.3
$6,406.0
9.7
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$5,912.0
$785.0
$6,697.0
15.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$6,837.0
$728.0
$7,565.0
13.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$925.0
($57.0)
$868.0
-2.5
Program Project Description:

Information is a strategic resource to EPA.  It allows each program office to fulfill its mission in
support of the protection  of human health and the environment. The  Agency's Information
Security  Program is designed to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of EPA's
information assets.   The protection strategy for the  Superfund program includes,  but is not
limited to,  enterprise  policy,  procedure  and practice  management; information  security
awareness, training and education;  risk-based  Certification & Accreditation (C&A);  Plan of
Action & Milestones (POA&M) management to ensure remediation of weaknesses; defense-in-
depth  and  breadth technology and operational security management; incident  response  and
handling; and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) reporting.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Effective information security  faces  new challenges  every single  day.   Agency  security
practitioners are constantly challenged with responding to increasingly creative and sophisticated
attempts  to breach organizational protections.  In FY 2012, EPA's integrated efforts will allow
the Agency's Information Security Program to take a more proactive role in dealing with these
threats under the Superfund Program.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to protect, defend and sustain its information assets related to the
Superfund  program by  continuing  improvement  to the Information Security  Program.  The
Agency will  continue to  focus  on asset  definition  and management, compliance,  incident
management,  knowledge  and information management, risk management and  technology
management.   Secondary activities in  FY 2012 include,  but are not limited  to, access
management, organizational  training and  awareness, measurement and analysis and service
continuity.  These efforts will strengthen the Agency's ability to ensure operational resiliency.
                                          711

-------
The  final  result is an  information security program that can rely on effective and  efficient
processes and documented plans when threatened by disruptive events.

Concurrently, EPA will continue  its  performance-based information security activities with a
particular  emphasis  on  risk management,  incident management and  information  security
architecture (defense-in-depth/breadth).  These three areas are critical to the Agency's security
position.  They are also  key components of various federal mandates, such as the Office of
Management  and Budget (OMB)  information security initiatives,  which will be implemented
throughout FY 2012, including:  Trusted Internet  Connection (TIC),  Domain  Name Service
Security (DNSSec), and the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC).  These mandates are
rapidly  enhancing the Agency's  security  requirements  for information  policy,  technology
standards and practices.

EPA will  continue transitioning from Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) to IPv6 in accordance
with the June 30, 2008 OMB M-05-22, Transition Planning for Internet Protocol Version  6 (IPv6).
This effort is a Federal initiative designed to retain our nation's technical and market leadership in
the Internet sector and to  expand and improve services for Americans.  As with many enterprise
initiatives, there are significant security challenges that must be addressed to make this capability
secure.  EPA will continue analyzing and planning a long-term strategy  for implementing,
monitoring and securing an IPv6 environment in FY 2012.

Additionally, EPA will continue  implementing Homeland Security Presidential Directive  12
(HSPD-12) requirements  for logical access as identified in the Federal Information Processing
Standards  (FIPS)  201,  Personal Identity  Verification  (PIV)  of Federal Employees and
Contractors.  This Enterprise Identity and Access Management (IAM) project will be combined
with the Enterprise  Single  Sign-On (SSO) to enable the required  enhanced authentication
mechanism without burdening EPA systems users.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports  the performance measure in the Information Security Program
Project  under the EPM  appropriation.  This measure can also be found  in  the Four  Year
Performance Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-$57.0 / -0.5  FTE) These  resources are shifting  from the Information Security  program
       to  the IT/ Data Management program to  support the Agency's Capital Planning and
       Investment Control (CPIC) projects and policy. This change includes $57.0 in associated
       payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help  the agency
       better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
                                          712

-------
Statutory Authority:

Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 44 U.S.C. 3541 et seq. - Sections 301,
302, 303, 304, 305,  401  and 402 and Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39
U.S.C. 2803 et seq. - Sections 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management
Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501 et seq. - Sections 101, 201, 301, 401,  402, 403, 404 and
405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - Sections 5001,  5201, 5301, 5401,
5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork Reduction  Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501  et seq. - Sections
104, 105, 106,  107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and  113 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. -
Sections 552(a)(2), 552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and  552(a)(6).
                                        713

-------
                                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2010
Actuals
$98,258.9
$4,054.0
$152.3
$24.0
$16,498.3
$118,987.5
481.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$88,576.0
$4,108.0
$0.0
$0.0
$15,352.0
$108,036.0
481.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($8,834.0)
($277.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($1,735.0)
($11,032.0)
-21.6
Program Project Description:

High quality, readily available and usable data serves as a strategic resource that supports the
Agency's mission of protecting public health and the environment.   IT/Data Management
(IT/DM) program activities  support the Administration's goals  of transparency, participation,
engagement and collaboration to expand the conversation  on environmentalism.  IT/DM also
delivers essential services to Agency staff to allow them to conduct their work in  support of
Superfund programs.

IT/DM reflects four themes:  facilitating mission activities through better information and tools;
improving  agency  work processes  to  promote  efficiencies;  increasing  transparency  and
innovation in the agency work processes; and supporting the work force with reliable tools and
services.  This program  houses the entire critical IT infrastructure needed  for:   1) rapid and
efficient communication; 2)  exchange and storage  of data,  analysis and computations; and 3)
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 Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).

This program manages  and coordinates  the Agency's Enterprise Architecture  and develops
analytical tools to ensure sound environmental decision-making. The program implements the
Agency's E-Government (E-Gov) responsibilities and it designs, develops and manages the
Agency's internet and intranet resources, including the Integrated Portal.
                                          714

-------
In more  specific terms, the program: (1) supports development, collection, management and
analysis of point source and ambient environmental data used 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 good quality and adhere to
federal   guidelines;   and  (4)  supports  regional  information  technology   infrastructure,
telecommunications and administrative and environmental programs.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the following IT/DM activities will continue to be provided for the Superfund
program:

    •  Information Access - FY 2012 activities in this area are principally  geared toward
       making environmental information accessible to all  users.   This includes:  access to
       Environmental Indicators; support for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data; improvement
       in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activities through the use of electronic workflow
       management and eRulemaking -  a Web-based system to facilitate, and provide greater
       public access to, federal rulemakings;  and development of analytical tools to help users
       understand the meaning of environmental data.  It includes facility data collected from
       numerous federal programs and tools to help those who use information from a variety of
       sources to reconfigure that data so it can be easily  compared and analyzed. Of particular
       emphasis in  FY  2012  is EPA's  Transparency  and  Open Government participation,
       including streamlined contributions to Data.gov.  Key activities will ensure that access to
       critical data (e.g., regulated facilities, toxic releases) is increased through Data.gov and
       the Agency's  GeoData  Gateway,  providing  opportunities  for  collaboration  and
       intergovernmental  partnerships which  reduce  duplication of data  investments,  and
       offering the public easy access to important federal services for businesses. (In FY 2012,
       the Information Access activities  will  be funded,  under the Superfund appropriation, at
       $0.31 million in non-payroll funding).

    •  Envirofacts - FY 2012 activities in this area continue to: support a single point of access
       to EPA databases containing information about  environmental activities that may affect
       air, water and land anywhere in the United States; house data that has been  collected from
       regulated entities  and  the states;  and  make  that data  accessible  to   environmental
       professionals, the regulated community,  citizens groups and  state and EPA employees
       through an easy-to-use, one-stop  access point.   Its components include  databases and
       applications that  make  integrated  environmental information  available to all EPA
       stakeholders.  Envirofacts  directly supports the  Agency's strategic  goal of fulfilling
       American's "Right-to-Know" about their environment,  which  in turn supports EPA's
       mission to protect human health and the environment. It also supports integrated data
       access, a key component in the planned enterprise architecture that will  support EPA's
       current and future business needs.  The Facility  Registry System, Envirofacts  and  the
       System of Registries will be focused to provide a cost-effective, common Web services
                                           715

-------
       approach for other applications. Envirofacts also is being used to help plan and conduct
       multi-media inspections and to support emergency response and planning.

       Envirofacts will  continue to serve as the Agency's premier single gateway to various
       program and facility data, serving stakeholders within the federal government as well as
       the public.  Serving up 3-4 million hits per month, Envirofacts offers popular queries and
       place-based reporting and is  a highly desirable  capability for reporting environmental
       information to the public.  Opportunities do exist for potential cost savings.  Reductions
       in the Envirofacts budget can  be achieved by reducing operational  costs in several areas:
       1) implementing  operational  efficiencies in the hosting environment for Envirofacts,
       specifically making use of shared  appliances in the National Computing  Center;  2)
       reducing  the total development costs by stretching adaptive maintenance over several
       fiscal years; 3) reducing development costs  by implementing only high priority changes
       and  modifications; 4) working with the program offices to provide additional resources
       and  begin discussions about moving towards more  of a pay-as-you-go model.  (In  FY
       2012, the Envirofacts activities will be funded,  under  the Superfund appropriation, at
       $0.32 million in non-payroll funding).

   •   IT/Information Management (IT/IM) Policy and Planning - FY 2012 activities in this
       area will continue ensuring that all  due  steps are  taken to reduce redundancy among
       information  systems and  data bases, streamline  and  systematize  the  planning and
       budgeting for all IT/IM activities and monitor the progress and performance of all IT/IM
       activities and systems.  This  category includes EPA's implementation of an Enterprise
       Architecture and the Capital Planning and Investment Control process (CPIC), to assist
       the Agency in making better-informed decisions on IT/IM investments and resource
       allocations.  In FY 2012, this activity will  sustain a reduction  in funding for program
       management and governance in the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and  IT Capital
       Planning programs.   (In FY  2012, the IT/IM Policy  and Planning  activities will  be
       funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at $1.05 million in payroll funding and $0.41
       in non-payroll funding).
                                            o
   •   Geospatial Information and Analysis  -  In FY  2012, EPA will  continue providing
       place-based analysis of environmental conditions and trends across the country. A broad
       range of data pertinent to specific places (facilities,  roads, waste sites,  etc.) and natural
       features (wetlands, soil types,  hydrographic features, etc.) has been cataloged  and  can be
       accessed using Web-based or  desktop tools.  Geospatial information and analysis  play a
       critical  role in  the  Agency's  ability to  respond rapidly and  effectively in times  of
       emergency in addition to meeting everyday  program and region  specific business  needs.
       Additionally, geographic location is a key way to find and access EPA digital data and
       documents, and the Agency is in the process of building tools that will allow Web users
       to retrieve  relevant documents by specifying a location that  they  are interested  in.
       Implemented as a holistic enterprise solution, these  projects also save time and money,
       assure compatibility and reduce the need for multiple subscriptions to software, data and
       analytical services. (In FY 2012, the Geospatial Information and Analysis activities will
       be funded at $0.07 million in payroll funding and $0.73 million in non-payroll  funding.)
* For more information on the Geospatial program, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/geospatial/


                                           716

-------
•  Electronic Records and Content Management (ECMS) - FY 2012 activities in this
   area continue to enhance systems and processes, convert paper documents into electronic
   documents,  convert paper-based  processes  into  systems  that  rely  less  on  paper
   documents, and manage the electronic documents.  By doing  so, these activities reduce
   costs, improve accessibility and improve security for all of the documents entered into the
   system. Electronic documents require less storage space and do not require a filing staff
   to manage the paper records. A single copy of an electronic document can be accessed
   simultaneously by numerous individuals and from virtually any location.

   In FY 2012,  the Agency will continue using a collaborative  process to  implement the
   ECMS project, an enterprise-wide, multimedia solution designed to manage and organize
   native and environmental data and documents for program offices, regional offices, field
   offices  and laboratories.    Previously fragmented data storage approaches will  be
   converted into a single tool on a standard platform accessible to everyone, reducing data
   and  document  search time and assisting in  security  and information retention efforts.
   Certain tools developed for specific systems (eg: Superfund Data Management System
   Metadata  Extender) during the development stages of the project have shown to have
   broader applicability for other systems within the Agency.  These tools will be modified
   to meet the needs of these systems and thus expand the number of Agency data systems
   capable of utilizing  the ECMS repository.  (In FY 2012, the Electronic Records and
   Content Management activities will  be  funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at
   $0.32 million in non-payroll funding).

•  Internet Operations and Maintenance Enhancements (IOME) - FY 2012 activities in
   this  area continue implementing and  maintaining the EPA Home Page (www.EPA.gov)
   and  over  200 top-level  pages that facilitate access to the many information resources
   available on the EPA Web site.  In addition, IOME provides the funding to support Web
   hosting for all of the Agency's Web sites and pages.  The EPA Web site is the primary
   delivery mechanism  for environmental information to EPA staff, partners, stakeholders
   and the public, and is becoming a resource for emergency planning and response.  (In FY
   2012, IOME  activities  will be funded,  under the Superfund appropriation,  at  $0.97
   million in non-payroll funding).

•  IT/IM  Infrastructure  -  FY  2012 activities in this  area continue  supporting the
   information technology  infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs and
   telecommunications  for all EPA  employees and  other  on-site workers at over  100
   locations,  including EPA Headquarters, all ten regions and the various labs and ancillary
   offices.   More specifically, these activities provide what  is  known  as "workforce
   support,"  which includes desktop equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application
   hosting, remote access, telephone services and maintenance, Web and network servers,
   IT related maintenance,  IT security and electronic records  and  data. (In FY 2012, the
   IT/EVI Infrastructure activities will be funded, under the Superfund appropriation, at
   $3.09 million in payroll funding and $8.07 million in non-payroll funding).
                                       717

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.  Currently, there are no specific
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$129.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •  (-0.4 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •  (+$65.0 / +0.5 FTE) This change reflects a realignment of 0.5 FTE and associated payroll
       from the Information Security program to IT/ Data Management to support the Agency's
       CPIC project oversight and policy development.

    •  (-$28.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •  (-$570.0) This reflects the efficiency gains from consolidating Envirofacts, Facility
       Registry System, and System of Registries and additional contractual savings.

    •  (-$148.0) This change reduces funding for the following tools and analytical support:
       Envirofacts to reflect efficiencies gained, support to the network of Agency statisticians,
       Environmental Indicators Gateway, and the development of summaries of the Report on
       the Environment.

    •  (-$258.0) This change reduces funding for program management and governance on the
       Agency's Enterprise Architecture and IT Capital Planning programs.

    •  (-$718.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

    •  (-$207.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                           718

-------
Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 42 U.S.C. 553 et seq. and Government Information
Security Act (GISRA), 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - Sections  3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3535 and
3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. - Sections 101-128, 301-312 and 401-405 and Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103,  104 and 108 and Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. - Sections 101,  102, 103,  104,  105, 107, and 109 and Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. - Sections 201, 301 and 401 and Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. - Sections 136a - 136y
and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. - Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501
and Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 300 et seq. - Sections 1400,
1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441,  1454 and  1461 and Federal  Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and  Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.  11001 et seq. - Sections 322, 324, 325  and 328 and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. - Sections  1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 39 U.S.C. 2803 et seq. - Sections 1115,
1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), 31 U.S.C. 501
et seq. - Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404 and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40
U.S.C. 1401 et seq. - Sections  5001, 5201,  5301, 5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. - Sections 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,  111,
112 and  113  and Freedom  of Information Act  (FOIA), 5  U.S.C. 552 et seq.  and Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq. - Sections 801, 811, 821,  841, 871, 955 and 961
and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. - Sections 552(a)(2),
552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
                                        719

-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
                          720

-------
                                                          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
FY2010
Enacted
$1,147.0
$893.0
$2,040.0
7.3
FY2010
Actuals
$1,313.8
$863.5
$2,177.3
6.4
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$1,147.0
$893.0
$2,040.0
7.3
FY2012
Pres Budget
$1,329.0
$927.0
$2,256.0
6.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$182.0
$34.0
$216.0
-0.4
Program Project Description:

The General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices provide environmental Alternative Dispute
Resolution services (ADR). EPA utilizes ADR as a method for preventing or resolving conflicts
prior to engaging in formal litigation and includes the provision of legal counsel, facilitation,
mediation and  consensus building.   Funding supports the use  of  ADR in  the  Superfund
program's extensive legal work with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide  conflict prevention and ADR services to EPA
headquarters and Regional offices and external stakeholders on Superfund program matters.  The
national ADR program assists in developing effective ways to anticipate, prevent, and resolve
disputes and  makes neutral third  parties - such  as facilitators and mediators - more readily
available for those purposes.  Under EPA's ADR Policy, the Agency encourages the use of ADR
techniques to prevent and resolve disputes with  external parties in many  contexts, including
adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and civil judicial enforcement
actions, permit  issuance, protests of contract awards,  administration  of contracts  and grants,
stakeholder involvement, negotiations, and litigation.

Performance Targets:

Work  under  this program  supports  multiple strategic objectives.  Currently,  there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.
                                          721

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$66.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$12.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$20.0) This change reflects a general reduction in non-payroll resources.

Statutory Authority:

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sections 571, 572, and 573,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Section
1111; EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
                                           722

-------
                                                 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 2010
Enacted
$42,662.0
$746.0
$43,408.0
250.6
FY 2010
Actuals
$42,826.7
$658.7
$43,485.4
240.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$42,662.0
$746.0
$43,408.0
250.6
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$45,352.0
$750.0
$46,102.0
248.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$2,690.0
$4.0
$2,694.0
-2.5
Program Project Description:

The Agency's Legal Support: Environmental program provides legal representational services,
legal counseling and legal support for all Agency environmental activities. Funding supports
legal  advice  needed  in  the Superfund  program's extensive  legal  work  with  Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) and other entities and landowners involved in the program.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency relies upon sound legal advice in carrying out its environmental mission. In FY
2012, legal  advice  to the Superfund programs  will  continue to 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  the following:  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 Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$12.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.
                                          723

-------
    •   (-0.2 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$2.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative  Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign  processes and streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$6.0) This change reflects a general reduction in non-payroll resources.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive  Environmental  Response, Compensation and  Liability  Act (CERCLA),  42
U.S.C. § 9601 - 9659, Sections 101 - 310; EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
                                           724

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   725

-------
                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2010
Actuals
$310,238.8
$72,841.7
$29,896.7
$871.9
$489.4
$76,052.0
$490,390.5
410.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$324,965.0
$76,521.0
$33,931.0
$916.0
$536.0
$81,431.0
$518,300.0
408.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$9,727.0
$3,603.0
$5,000.0
$12.0
$31.0
$2,949.0
$21,322.0
-2.6
Program Project Description:

Superfund appropriation in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program is used to fund
rental of laboratory and office space, utilities, security, and also to manage activities and support
services in many centralized  administrative areas for the Superfund Program.  These include
health  and  safety,  environmental  compliance,  occupational  health,  medical  monitoring,
fitness/wellness and  safety, environmental management functions,  facilities maintenance and
operations,  space  planning,  shipping and  receiving,  property management,  printing  and
reproduction, mail management, and transportation services.  Funding is allocated among the
major appropriations for the Agency.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Agency reviews space needs on a regular basis,  and is implementing a long-term space
consolidation plan that  includes reducing the number of occupied facilities, consolidating space
within the remaining facilities, and reducing the square footage where practical. From FY 2007
through FY 2010, EPA released approximately 250,000 square feet of space at headquarters and
facilities nationwide  resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of over $1.5 million in
Superfund dollars over this  period.   In FY 2011 through  FY 2014,  EPA plans to release
additional  space for more savings. These achieved savings and potential savings partially offset
EPA's escalating rent budget. For example, replacement leases for  regional  offices in Boston,
Kansas City, San Francisco, and Seattle are significantly higher than those previously negotiated.
The Agency will continue  to manage  its lease agreements with  the  General   Services
                                          726

-------
Administration and  other private landlords by conducting reviews and  verifying that billing
statements are correct. For FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a total of $47.11 million for rent,
$3.77 million for utilities, $8.28 million for security, $3.13 million for transit subsidy, and $2.51
million for regional moves in the Superfund appropriation.

In FY 2012, EPA  will continue 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) 134239, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management.  Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive  Order's
environmental  performance  goals  related to buildings 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 building standards. In FY 2012, the
Agency plans to reduce energy utilization (or improve  energy efficiency) by approximately 37
billion British Thermal Units or three percent.  EPA should end FY 2012 using approximately 21
percent less energy than it did in FY 2003.

EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, expands
upon EO 13423 and  requires additional reductions to greenhouse gas emissions.  EPA will meet
the requirements of EO 13514 through:

•      Managing  existing building systems  to reduce consumption  of energy, water,  and
       materials;
•      Identifying opportunities  to consolidate and dispose of existing assets, optimize  real
       property; and portfolio performance, and reduce environmental impacts; and
•      Implementing best  management  practices  in  energy-efficient management  of  real
       property including Agency labs and data centers.

EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO  1315010
Federal  Workforce  Transportation.    EPA  will continue its  integration  of Environmental
Management Systems (EMS)  across the Agency,  consistent with requirements of Executive
Order  13423  and 13514.   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 while  protecting  its  employees  and
responsibly managing the environmental and safety hazards of samples associated with weapons
of mass destruction.
 Information is available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3514/. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance; and http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/. Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management
10 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
                                           727

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation. These measures can also be found in
the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$161.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base  workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-2.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$231.0 / +2.0 FTE) This change reflects a realignment of resources from Acquisition
       Management  program. Region  10's  increased workload in this program,  which is
       associated with a large and complicated building renovation project spanning multiple
       years, demands the increased level of project management efforts. Further, a decreased
       workload in  Acquisition Management  in that  location  enables  the transfer. These
       resources includes $231.0 in associated payroll.

   •   (+$3,247.0)  This reflects the net effect to the Superfund  appropriation from projected
       contractual rent  increases  and  reallocation among EPM,  Superfund and  Science  and
       Technology appropriations.

   •   (+$368.0) This reflects an increase in utility costs.

   •   (-$17.0)  This change reflects the net effect of an increase in security costs which is offset
       by savings from efficiencies gained due to guard post reductions at EPA Headquarters.

   •   (+$129.0) This reflects an increase in transit subsidy based on projected need.

   •   (-$647.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in the Regional Moves resources as a result
       of the completion of the San Francisco (Region 9) and Seattle (Region 10) moves.

   •   (+$334.0) This reflects an increase in operations and maintenance costs at EPA's owned
       Regional laboratories.

   •   (-$99.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such as
       email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million Agencywide.  Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

   •   (-$84.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          728

-------
    •   (-$674.0) This reflects a reduction  as part of the  Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

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; Energy Policy Act 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).
                                           729

-------
                                         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
FY2010
Enacted
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$28,432.0
177.5
FY2010
Actuals
$24,311.6
$3,240.9
$27,552.5
182.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$25,487.0
$2,945.0
$28,432.0
177.5
FY2012
Pres Budget
$26,223.0
$3,243.0
$29,466.0
174.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$736.0
$298.0
$1,034.0
-3.0
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 (lAs), and to suspension  and debarment at  headquarters and
within Regional offices.  The key  components  of this program  are  ensuring  that EPA's
management of grants and lAs 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,  local and tribal  governments to support the implementation of environmental programs.
Sound grants management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.
A substantial portion of the Superfund program is implemented through lAs with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will  achieve key objectives under its FY 2009-2013 Grants Management Plan.
These objectives include strengthening accountability, ensuring competition, achieving positive
environmental outcomes, and implementing a comprehensive post-award monitoring program
for Superfund grants  and lAs.11  The Grants Management Plan provides  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 Agencywide training
  US EPA,EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-K-08-001, October 2008, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/fmalreport.pdf.
                                          730

-------
program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers.  EPA will continue to streamline
Grants Management through the E-Government (E-gov) initiative Grants Management Line of
Business (GM LoB). GM LoB 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 Project.

FY 2012 Change from the FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$226.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •  (-1.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •  (+$118.0 / +0.9 FTE) This change reflects the realignment of resources to support the
       Agency's IA Shared Service Centers. This includes 0.9 FTE, and $118.0 in associated
       payroll.

    •  (-$11.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •  (-$35.0)  This decrease  in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,   Compensation,   and   Liability   Act;   EPA's
Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
Act; the Economy Act;  Title  2  Code of Federal  Regulations; Title 40  Code  of Federal
Regulations, Parts:  30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009.
                                          731

-------
                                                              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
FY2010
Enacted
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY2010
Actuals
$33,272.6
$172.4
$23,820.8
$57,265.8
333.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY2012
Pres Budget
$34,119.0
$163.0
$24,097.0
$58,379.0
348.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$1,715.0
($2.0)
($587.0)
$1,126.0
-14.0
Program Project Description:

Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.
Superfund resources  in this  program fund support contracts,  and  acquisition management at
headquarters, Regional offices, Research Triangle  Park, and Cincinnati offices.  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.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, between the SF  and EPM  accounts,  at least  $3  million  in total  acquisition
management resources will  be used by EPA to train and develop its acquisition workforce, and
to strengthen its contractor training program—two  efforts that mirror the President's guidelines
for  civilian agencies  in the Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for FY 2010-
2014.  In  addition, resources will support  the recruitment, retention,  and  hiring of additional
members of the acquisition workforce as defined by the Office of Federal  Procurement Policy
Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401  et seq.). Acquisition management will also address information
technology needs that support management and the  acquisition workforce. In addition, EPA will
take the following steps to achieve acquisition efficiencies:

•      Eliminate contracts that are similar to or redundant in scope, or are no longer necessary to
       achieve the Agency's programmatic needs; and
•      Use government wide procurement sources  where available to reduce the need for new
       contracts.
                                          732

-------
As the Agency completes the final implementation stage of EPA's Acquisition System (EAS),
the decrease in Superfund resources for this new system will provide the Agency with a better
and more comprehensive  way to manage data on  contracts  that support mission  oriented
planning and  evaluation.    This  will  allow the Agency to  meet  E-Government  (E-Gov)
requirements and the needs  of Acquisition Management personnel resulting in more  efficient
process implementation.

In FY 2012,  EPA will reinforce its  contract oversight responsibilities through A-123 Entity Level
Assessments, increased targeted oversight training for acquisition management personnel,  and
Simplified Acquisition  Contracting Officer (SACO) reviews.  These measures  will  further
strengthen EPA's acquisition management business processes and enhance contract oversight.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports the performance measure in the  Acquisition Management
Program Project  under the  EPM appropriation.   This measure  can also  be found in  the
Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$557.0) This  increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce  costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-$351.0 / -2.9 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
       help  the  Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.  This decrease
       reflects a transfer of resources to the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program to
       assist with a multi-year renovation project in Region ten, and to the Grants Management
       program to support the Interagency Agreement (IA) shared service centers. This includes
       -2.9 FTE, and -$351.0 in associated payroll.

   •   (+$242.0 / +2.0 FTE) This  reflects an increase in acquisition staff in an effort to enhance
       acquisition workforce effectiveness. This includes 2.0 FTE, and $242.0 in  associated
       payroll.

   •   (-6.7  FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (-$500.0)  This  change  reflects revised estimates  on the implementation  of EPA's
       Acquisition System.

   •   (-$57.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in contract management services.

   •   (-$173.0) This  reduction reflects efficiencies from several Agencywide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and  others
       totaling $10 million Agencywide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.
                                          733

-------
    •   (-$186.0)  This  decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$119.0)  This  reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative  targets  certain categories of spending  for efficiencies and reductions,
       including  advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's Environmental  Statutes;  Annual Appropriations  Acts;  contract law. Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C.  401 et seq.).
                                            734

-------
                                                         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
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$42,447.0
$5,580.0
$48,027.0
303.1
FY2010
Actuals
$43,526.7
$4,332. 7
$47,859.4
274.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$42,447.0
$5,580.0
$48,027.0
303.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$44,680.0
$7,046.0
$51,726.0
296.1
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$2,233.0
$1,466.0
$3,699.0
-7.0
Program Project Description:

Superfund  appropriation resources for the Human  Resources Management program  support
activities that influence the broad spectrum of human capital and human resources management
services throughout the Agency. As requirements and initiatives change, the Agency continually
evaluates  and improves Superfund program related human  resource functions in outreach,
recruitment, hiring, developing and  nourishing  the workforce to increase management and
employee satisfaction, and to help the Agency achieve its mission.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will focus on implementing the Administration's comprehensive hiring
reform in the Federal government.  On May 11, 2010 the President signed the memorandum,
Improving  the Federal Recruitment  and Hiring Process12, which directed agencies to adopt
simpler and more applicant-friendly hiring practices that improve the quality and timeliness of
the hiring process, and that are consistent with merit system principles.  Executive departments
and agencies are required to "overhaul the way they recruit and hire our civilian workforce." In
addition, managers and supervisors must assume leadership roles in  recruiting and selecting
highly-qualified employees from all segments of society and will be held accountable for these
responsibilities. The key facets of hiring reform  are: to ease the hiring process while raising the
bar on candidate quality; to  increase engagement of agency  leaders in the  recruitment and
selection process and to monitor agency efforts to increase the speed and quality of hiring.  The
six major initiatives include:

    1.  Eliminating any requirement that applicants respond to essay-style questions when first
       applying for federal employment.
12 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-nnproving-federal-recruitment-and-hiring-process
                                          735

-------
       Allowing individuals to apply using resumes and cover letters.

   2.  Exercising  discretion  to  use  "Category Rating" which can  increase the number of
       candidates for interviews.

   3.  Making sure that managers and supervisors with responsibility for hiring are more fully
       involved in the process and are held accountable through the performance management
       process.

   4.  Working  with OPM and  the HR community to improve the quality and  speed  of the
       agency process.

   5.  Notifying  individuals  applying for federal employment through USAJOBS about the
       status of their application at key stages in the application process.  EPA fully integrated
       this update feature in February of this year. We will monitor applicant satisfaction  of this
       feature through the applicant satisfaction survey data supplied by OPM and make future
       changes as deemed appropriate.

These  initiatives  will be  addressed mainly through further standardizing  processes (such as
standardized position descriptions), and developing guides and processes that address each major
initiative.  Hiring Reform is  a broad, agency-wide human capital responsibility  that requires
participation from a cross-section of managers, program  officials and the human  resources
community.

EPA will  continue to improve the effectiveness  and  efficiency of Agency human  resources
operations conducted by its three Shared Service  Centers (SSCs) in support of the Superfund
program.  These three  SSCs handle all  human resources  transactional  functions for EPA's
17,000 plus employees.  These  SSCs initiate recruitment and process personnel  and benefits
actions for EPA's 17,000 plus employees.  The SSCs continue to track timeliness and monitor
the quality of customer service, through formal and informal processes.

In 2012, EPA will solicit employee feedback on what the Agency may do to improve the quality
of work life. In addition, the  Agency will launch a Quality of Work Life intranet  site that will
announce new plans and activities, and publicize  programs that help employees develop their
careers, enjoy their work environment, balance work and personal demands, and lead healthier
lives.   In  FY 2012, EPA will  continue  employee  outreach efforts  and  soliciting employee
feedback in the Agency's effort to improve the quality of work life.

In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the E-
Government (E-Gov) initiative, and the Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB) program.
HR LoB offers government-wide, cost effective, and standardized HR solutions while providing
core functionality to support the strategic management of human capital.  In  FY 2012, EPA will
support the transition to a  new HR  system  which  will  establish modern, cost-effective,
standardized, interoperable HR solutions that provide common core functionality and support the
strategic management of human capital.
                                          736

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports the performance  results in the Human  Resources
Management Program Project under the EPM appropriation and can be found in the Performance
Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$1,503.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-1.6 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (+$78.0) This reflects an increase for Workers Compensation unemployment costs.

    •   (-$56.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work to redesign   processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$59.0)  This decrease  in travel  costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Title V USC, FAIR Act.
                                           737

-------
                                              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
FY2010
Enacted
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY2010
Actuals
$86,883.5
$1,312.0
$28,192.2
$116,387.7
538.7
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$77,548.0
$512.0
$22,252.0
$100,312.0
535.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($5,286.0)
($603.0)
($5,238.0)
($11,127.0)
-12.0
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  activities under the  Central Planning,  Budgeting and Finance
program in  support of integrated planning, budgeting formulation  and execution, financial
management, performance and accountability processes, financial cost recovery, and the systems
to ensure effective stewardship of Superfund resources.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide high-quality resource stewardship to ensure that
all  Agency programs  operate with fiscal  responsibility and management  integrity, and are
efficiently and consistently delivered nationwide and demonstrate results.  EPA will continue to
provide direction and support for  the  Superfund  program in financial management  activities;
implementing  cost accounting  requirements;  financial payment and  support  services;  and
Superfund-specific fiscal and accounting services.

Early in FY 2012, the Agency will  complete a major milestone by deploying  a  new core
financial  system. This  extensive effort will improve both  the Agency's  ability  to meet its
fiduciary responsibilities as well  as advance program goals and initiatives  by better linking EPA
financial and program performance and providing timely and reliable financial data  to inform
management decision  making.  For  example, the new core financial  system will improve
efficiency  by  automating  quality  control  functions as well as comply with Congressional
                                          738

-------
direction and federal financial systems requirements. This work will be framed by the Agency's
Enterprise Architecture and make use of enabling technologies for e-Gov initiatives.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to improve its transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of
operations through improved coordination and integration of internal control assessments over
financial activities as required under revised OMB Circular A-123  as well  as controls over
programmatic  operations under  the Federal  Manager's Financial  Integrity Act  (FMFIA).
Improvements in internal controls will further support EPA's initiatives for improved financial
performance.  EPA also will continue to ensure improved  accessibility to data to support
accountability, cost accounting, budget and performance integration, and management decision-
making.

Since the implementation of the  Improper Payment Act of 2002, EPA has reviewed, sampled,
and monitored its payments to protect against erroneous  payments.   The Agency consistently
exceeds the  government-wide performance goal of 2.5  percent with an average error rate of less
than 1 percent across all categories (grants, contracts, commodities,  and travel/purchase card).
Payments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were also included in the
sample. In FY 2012, EPA will continue these activities to reduce even further the amount of
improper payments pursuant to the Improper Payment Act of 2002 as amended, by the Improper
Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (TPERA), (P.L. 111-204).

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple  strategic  objectives.   Currently, there  are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010  Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$689.6) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce cost for existing
       FTE.

   •   (-$503.67-0.6 FTE) This reflects a reduction in Superfund finance activities including
       contract support for Superfund reporting, A-123 reviews and training.  The reduced
       resources include 0.6 FTE and associated payroll of $74.4.

   •   (-3.1  FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (-$485.0)  This reduction reflects  efficiencies from  several Agency-wide IT projects such
       as email optimization, consolidated  IT procurement, helpdesk standardization, and others
       totaling $10 million agency-wide. Savings in individual areas may be offset by increased
       mandatory costs for telephone and Local Area Network (LAN) support for FTE.

   •   (-$164.0)  This reflects a  reduction as part  of  the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This  initiative targets  certain categories of spending for  efficiencies and reductions,
       including  advisory contracts,  travel, general services,  printing and supplies. EPA will
                                          739

-------
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$49.0) This decrease in travel costs  reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$4,726.0) This decrease reduces support for the financial system modernization project
       (FSMP).

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.
                                         740

-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                      741

-------
                                         Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
                                          Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$188,095.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$210,343.0
647.0
FY2010
Actuals
$183,002.7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,525.3
$206,500.2
625.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$186,095.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$208,343.0
647.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$171,026.0
$454.0
$614.0
$17,706.0
$189,800.0
621.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($17,069.0)
$109.0
($25.0)
($3,558.0)
($20,543.0)
-25.3
Program Project Description:

The new Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program under the Superfund
appropriation seeks to be responsive to the Superfund Amendments  and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) requirements under Section 209(a), which calls for "...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."   The SHC program  provides  essential
research  to the Agency's  Superfund program to  enable  them to  accelerate  scientifically
defensible  and  cost-effective  decisions  for  cleanup  at complex contaminated  sites. Research
themes include  contaminated sediments,  groundwater, and site characterization issues. The
research program also provides site-specific technical support through  EPA labs and centers,  as
well as liaisons in each Regional Office.

In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its  planning and delivery of science  for the SHC program by
implementing an integrated  research approach  that looks at contaminated site  cleanup and
remediation from a systems perspective.  This approach will create synergy and provide more
timely and  efficient yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly
targeted to  single chemicals or problem areas.

Consistent  with the Administration's science and technology priorities for FY 2012,13 the new
integrated research approach will also help develop sustainable  solutions by conducting research
on green remediation technologies that may serve to benefit the community as a whole  while
removing contaminants or limiting their transport potential.   This research will  leverage the
diverse  capabilities of in-house  scientists and engineers  and bridge  traditional  scientific
13 For more information, see the Executive Office of the President memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/fyl2-budget-guidance-memo.pdf
                                           742

-------
disciplines.  In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as
federal, state and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations,  industry,  and
communities affected by  contaminated sites.   EPA will  use the  integrated transdisciplinary
research  framework to develop  a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges  and
inform sustainable solutions to meet our strategic goals.

This integration capitalizes on existing capabilities and promotes the use of a transdisciplinary
perspective to further EPA's mission. Research to address targeted, existing problems and
provide technical support will also continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable
applications and outcomes. All or portions of the following Research Programs will be
integrated into the SHC Research Program:

       Human Health Research
       Ecosystems Services Research
       Land Protection and Preservation Research
   -   Pesticides and Toxics Research
       Sustainability Research
       Fellowships Research

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan
Communities are  increasingly challenged to  sustain the well-being of their residents and the
benefits of nature upon which they  depend.  Changing demographics; urbanization; growing
waste streams; and tighter  budgets have added to the issues  that must be faced when remediating
Superfund sites. A more systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed. As one recipient
of an EPA Sustainability Partnership grant put it, "Communities need better tools to help them
make more pro-active and strategic land conservation,  land  development,  and investment
decisions."

The following are descriptions of research topics that the Agency plans to explore in FY 2012
based on  on-going input  from EPA's partners. These  research themes and questions will be
independently reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors.
Resources transferred  from  the Superfund  appropriation  will  be used  within  these themes
consistent with relevant authorization.

  Theme 1: Strategies, Policies, and Practices for Sustainable Communities

   Communities are increasingly challenged to improve  and protect the health and well-being of
   their residents and the ecosystem services upon which they depend, in the face of increasing
   resource demands and changing demographics, economic, social, and climate patterns.

   This research area will focus on:

    •  Evaluating the performance of remedies for contaminated sediments; and

    •  Evaluating on-site chemical  oxication and  permeable reactive barriers at existing field
       sites.
                                          743

-------
 Key Research Questions:

  •   What are the problems that pose the greatest threat to communities across the U.S. with
      Superfund sites? What approaches to site remediation would best protect and enhance the
      ecosystem services that contribute to  human well-being,  while potentially providing
      valuable co-benefits to the  community  itself or to a  larger  region? What approaches to
      land use and management would have the greatest benefits in terms of protecting natural
      capital and reducing the adverse impacts of municipal and industrial wastes?

  •   What approaches would best reduce  community exposures  to toxics  from multiple
      sources at Superfund sites, especially for the most sensitive residents?

  •   What remedial options and approaches can be  developed  to facilitate  cleanup  of
      contaminated sites in order to expedite the  reuse of those sites in a protective manner,
      effectively returning those sites to the  status of a community  asset as opposed to a blight?

Theme 2: Sustainability Indicators and Performance Measures

 In the complex arena of sustainability, where the costs of failure can be high and stakeholders
 have multiple and sometimes conflicting  interests,  communities need measurement tools to
 characterize their current state, develop meaningful goals and quantifiable  objectives for the
 future, understand the consequences of alternative investment strategies, track their progress,
 and  confirm that their investments are yielding the intended results.

 This research will focus on:
       •   Developing indicators, indices, and performance measures that help communities to
           assess their overall sustainability;
       •   Diagnosing the areas that are (or will be) in greatest need of improvement; and
       •   Tracking progress toward sustainability goals and targets.

  Key Research Questions:

      •  What indicators of sustainability are most appropriate for assessing a community after
         a site remediation  has been completed,  or  in establishing remediation goals? What
         indicators of sustainability are  of most utility in diagnosing the  problems and
         identifying potential solutions?

      •  What  indicators   of  sustainability  are most  useful  for  setting   environmental
         remediation goals and communicating these goals to community stakeholders? What
         are  the most useful indicators of sustainability for tracking the performance  of
         projects intended to clean up or remediate Superfund sites and communicating the
         results to community stakeholders? What data are available at the national scale that
         could be useful to  communities with contaminated sites, and how can the numerous
         state and local datasets be collected and  organized to facilitate sustainability analysis
         when a region spans multiple jurisdictional boundaries?
                                          744

-------
  Theme 3: Decision Analysis and Support
   While communities often have creative and well-trained government staff, NGOs, and citizen
   groups, they usually do not have the capacity to rapidly develop and/or customize advanced
   decision tools and supporting data sets  that will enable effective,  real-time community
   investment decisions.

   This research will focus on developing practical decision support tools and analytic methods
   that enable communities  to  effectively use information developed by  the  SHC Research
   Program and other programs to support community decision making related to environmental
   sustainability.

   Key Research Questions:

   •   What computational and measurement tools can support community decision making
       regarding contaminated site cleanup and sustained improvements?


   •   What  types of  systems analysis  methods  (e.g.,  material flow  analysis, life cycle
       assessment, and  system  dynamics modeling) can be effectively applied or modified to
       help communities develop a clear vision for their future and understand which steps will
       achieve the best  outcomes in the face of uncertainty regarding sustained benefits of site
       remediation? How can decision support systems best be designed so that they provide
       clearly  understandable results to decision-makers and stakeholders and are usable by
       communities on a real-time, iterative basis?

Performance Targets:

Performance results  for this  program  are discussed in the  S&T:   Sustainable  and Healthy
Communities Research Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
As noted in the table  above,  EPA  is transitioning from the  former  "Land  Protection  and
Restoration Research Program:  Superfund" structure to the newly integrated "Sustainable and
Healthy  Communities  Research  Program:  Superfund"  structure.    For  FY 2012,  the
Administration is requesting $17,706.0 and 89.5 FTE for this program, including $12,149.0 in
associated payroll. The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012
budget structure to the 2010  enacted budget and are included in the transfers from the source
programs following this  section:

•   (-$2,927.0 / -2.5 FTE) This reduction reflects a decrease in scope for planned research in
   groundwater remediation and contaminated sediments, and includes a reduction of 2.5 FTE
   with  decreased associated  payroll  of $333.0.  This  change  reflects  EPA's workforce
   management strategy that will help the agency better  align resources,  skills,  and Agency
   priorities.
                                          745

-------
•  (-$115.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
   initiative targets  certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
   advisory contracts, travel,  general  services, printing and supplies.   EPA will continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$516.0 / -1.1 FTE) This decrease represents the net effect of all other payroll and technical
   adjustments  including  Information Technology reductions,  Small  Business  Renovation
   Research realignments and  administrative and  programmatic  support realignments and
   reductions.  It includes an increase in associated payroll of $333.0 for FTE changes as well
   as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program. For more information on
   these adjustments, refer  to  the  programs integrating into  the  Sustainable and Healthy
   Communities Research Program.

Following are transfers into the new transdisciplinary Sustainable  and Healthy Communities
Research Program:

•  (+$17,706.0 / +89.5 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
   Sustainable and Healthy Communities Program. This transfer includes the net effect of all
   technical  adjustments  such as IT  reductions,  SBIR realignments  and administrative and
   programmatic support realignments and reductions. For additional details on this net effect,
   please refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration Program narrative.

Statutory Authority:

BRERA; CERCLA 104(i),  Section 105(a) (4), Section 115, Section 311, 42 U.S.C 9604 (i) (1);
SARA 42 U.S.C. 7401 - Sec. 209 (a) and Sec. 403  (a,b).
                                           746

-------
Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
                          747

-------
                                                        Human Health Risk Assessment
                                Program Area: Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                     Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$42,899.0
$3,404.0
$46,303.0
182.5
FY2010
Actuals
$41,516.4
$3,169.1
$44,685.5
216.2
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$42,899.0
$3,404.0
$46,303.0
182.5
FY2012
Pres Budget
$42,400.0
$3,342.0
$45,742.0
195.8
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($499.0)
($62.0)
($561.0)
13.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's Office of Research and Development provides critical support to Agency environmental
policy decisions and regulatory actions to protect human health and the environment.  EPA
research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the past 40
years.  Research enabled the Agency to implement policies and regulations to minimize waste
and reduce pollution in specific  industries. However, these solutions were accomplished using
approaches based on the best available science at the time, for very specific problems such as
risks posed by a single chemical to a single target organ or species.

Now, as science  advances, EPA  is working to address the increasing complexity of 21st century
environmental challenges with solutions that are effective, efficient, and sustainable - solutions
that are designed to meet current needs while minimizing potential health and environmental
detriment in the future. The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Program will continue to
provide health hazard assessments and develop assessment methods.  EPA's HHRA Program
provides the scientific foundation  for the Agency's actions to protect Americans' public health
and environment.   It receives  resources under both  the Science and  Technology  and  the
Superfund appropriations.

A subcommittee review from the  Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a federal advisory
committee comprised of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—noted that the HHRA
Program has made  several key  advancements including completing a strategic  plan, targeting
cutting-edge risk assessments, enhancing communication, and improving capabilities to provide
assessment resources in response  to  significant events.  The BOSC reported that the HHRA
Program is making substantial and satisfactory progress in each  of the above areas based on
clearly defined  milestones as well as on  providing  the additional support requested by EPA
programs including technical support in response to unscheduled emergency needs.  In July
2010, the  BOSC reviewed the  mid-cycle report on the progress of the HHRA Program in
implementing its previous recommendations.  The BOSC affirmed its previous evaluation of the
relevance of the program and noted significant progress on its previous recommendations. EPA
                                          748

-------
is using the BOSC's evaluation and recommendations to help plan, implement, and strengthen
the program over the next five years.

The HHRA MYP14 details risk assessments and methodologies used to support EPA's Superfund
Program. Partners and stakeholders participate in planning work and help outline research needs
and priorities. The  Superfund portion of the HHRA Program includes the following:

   •   The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),15 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, the HHRA Program prepares
       IRIS hazard characterization and dose-response profiles for environmental pollutants of
       specific relevance to superfund site assessments and remediation.  As of January 2010,
       more than 550 health hazard assessments were available through IRIS, and the majority
       of these chemical assessments are relevant to Superfund's decision making. Where IRIS
       values are unavailable, the HHRA Program  develops PPRTVs  for evaluating chemical
       specific  exposures at Superfund sites.  EPA's Superfund Technical Support Centers
       provide support for these  PPRTV assessments. As of January  2010, new or renewed
       PPRTVs were available for 236 chemicals.

   •   Risk assessment guidance, methods, and model development:  The HHRA Program uses
       Superfund resources to improve risk assessment guidance,  methods,  and models for
       EPA's Superfund Program. This support includes the development of exposure-response
       data arrays,  revised reference concentration (RfC)  methodology  and  cumulative  risk
       tools.  These methods and tools will help staff in the Superfund  Program better estimate
       potential effects of exposures at superfund sites on humans.  The HHRA Program  will
       provide the consultative  support necessary for the application of these methods.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA  will continue to develop  IRIS assessments for environmental  pollutants of
specific relevance to superfund site assessments and remediation.   The HHRA Program  will
develop  PPRTVs  for evaluating chemical  specific  exposures  at  Superfund sites.   EPA's
Superfund Technical Support Centers will provide consultative support for PPRTV assessment
development.

Performance Targets:

EPA uses performance measures  for this program to manage and improve the development of
risk assessment to support EPA decision-making. .  These outcomes support the achievement of
EPA's Strategic Plan goals.  At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in
meeting planned annual outputs (detailed in  the program's research plan).   . In addition, to be
accountable to the  American taxpayers, EPA  plans to support  the interagency Science  and
Technology in America's Reinvestment - Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation,
Competitiveness and Science (STAR METRICS) Program, currently in a pilot phase for the
14 Available at: http://www. epa. gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hhramypdraft.pdf.
15 Available at: http://www.epa. gov/iris.
                                          749

-------
National Institutes of Health. This program is a collaboration of multiple science agencies, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the research community.  STAR METRICS will
use "science of  science policy" approaches  to  assess the impact  that federal  science  and
technology investments have on society, the environment, and the economy.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$86.0)  This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$12.0)  This  represents  a restoration  of  resources  transferred  to  the  Research:
       Sustainability Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).   For
       SBIR, EPA is  required  to  set aside  2.5 percent of funding for  contracts to small
       businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. After the FY
       2012 Budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
       2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

    •   (-$5.0) This decrease in travel costs  reflects an  effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$40.0) This reflects the net result of realignments of infrastructure resources such as
       equipment purchases,   repairs,  travel,  contracts,  and   general  expenses  that  are
       proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities.

    •   (-$42.0) This reduction reflects savings from EPA's Administrative Efficiencies Project
       (AEP), a long-term effort to develop a corporate approach to delivering administrative
       services. This will not have programmatic impacts.

    •   (-$47.0)   This  reflects a reduction  as part  of the government-wide  Administrative
       Efficiency Initiative.  This initiative targets certain categories of spending  for efficiencies
       and reductions,  including  advisory  contracts,  travel,  general services, printing  and
       supplies.  EPA will continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in
       both administrative and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$26.0)   This reflects a reduction of programmatic support resources  resulting from
       expected efficiencies in  providing operational  support to researchers  in  the  HHRA
       Research Program.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C.  7403  et  seq.  - Sections 103, 108,  109, and 112; CERCLA
(Superfund, 1980), Section  209(a)  of Public Law 99-499; FIFRA  (7 U.S.C. s/s  136 et seq.
(1996), as  amended), Sec. 3(c)(2)(A); FQPA PL 104-170; SDWA (1996)  42 U.S.C.  Section
300J-18; TSCA (Public  Law 94-469):  15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq.  (1976), Sec. 4(b)(l)(B), Sec.
4(b)(2)(B).
                                           750

-------
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
              751

-------
                                          Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal
                                                         Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                                Objective(s): Restore Land
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$202,330.0
$202,330.0
292.4
FY2010
Actuals
$225,840.0
$225,840.0
280.8
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$202,330.0
$202,330.0
292.4
FY2012
Pres Budget
$194,895.0
$194,895.0
281.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($7,435.0)
($7,435.0)
-10.8
Program Project Description:

The Superfund program was initially designed, and has been consistently used, to implement two
complementary types of response actions: remedial actions and removal actions.  Remedial
actions fully address wastes  at the largest,  most complex contamination sites (i.e., National
Priorities List [NPL] sites). Removal actions quickly address releases, whether originating from
an NPL site or not, that pose an imminent threat to public health or welfare and the environment.
The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program addresses removal actions.

Each  year,  more than 30,000  emergencies involving the release (or threatened release) of
hazardous substances are reported in the United  States, potentially affecting both  communities
and the surrounding natural environment.  The  Superfund Emergency Response and Removal
program  ensures that releases  of hazardous substances, including chemical,  biological,  and
radiological agents  (e.g.,  uranium, radium, and thorium), to the environment are appropriately
addressed,  first through  pursuing potentially   responsible  parties  and  then,  if  necessary,
completing a Federal-led  action.  As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)16, EPA evaluates
both large  and small releases and responds with  emergency  and removal actions 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.

The Superfund  Emergency Response and Removal  program supports the Agency's priorities of
cleaning up communities  and  building state and tribal partnerships. For more information about
the   Superfund   Emergency   Response  and   Removal    program,  please   refer   to
http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/er cleanup.htm.
16 EPA's roles and responsibilities are further outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP), please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/lawsregs/ncpover.htm.
                                           752

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA  personnel  assess, respond to,  mitigate, and  clean up thousands of releases, whether
accidental,  or deliberate.   EPA Federal OSCs conduct  and/or provide support for removal
assessments, emergency responses, and cleanup response actions at NPL and non-NPL sites.

In FY 2012, EPA will  continue to respond and conduct removal actions based upon the risk to
human health and  the environment in urban, rural  and Indian country.  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
knowledge of specific  hazardous substances, health and safety issues, complex options, or the
utilization of emerging technologies.

EPA will continue to conduct an annual readiness training event for Federal OSCs,  which is
widely attended by EPA and its government partners from other federal  agencies, states, tribes,
and local entities. This training offers courses on a variety of environmentally related emergency
response topics  designed  to  strengthen the knowledge  and skills of federal  responders and
provides required training for OSCs. This very successful training program is designed to ensure
the readiness  of EPA OSCs nationwide by focusing on EPA's efforts  to create  necessary
consistency across  the Agency,  highlight priorities for  further  policy development and
coordination, and strengthen partnerships with local, state, tribal and other federal responders.

The Environmental Response Team  (ERT)  provides assistance at the  scene of hazardous
substance releases, offering expertise in such areas as treatment, biology, chemistry, hydrology,
geology, and engineering.  In  FY 2012, the ERT will  continue to provide  support for the full
range of emergency response actions, including unusual or complex emergency incidents.   In
such cases, ERT brings in special equipment and  experienced responders,  and can provide the
OSC or lead responder with experience and advice.

In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated cleanup  initiative (ICI) in FY 2010 to better
utilize EPA's  assessment and cleanup authorities, in an integrated and  transparent fashion, to
address  a greater number  of contaminated  sites, accelerate cleanups, where possible,  and  put
those sites  back  into productive  use while protecting human health  and the environment.  By
coordinating the  relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial,
Removal,  and Federal Facilities;  Brownfields;  Underground  Storage  Tanks;  and  RCRA
Corrective  Action), EPA  will  better leverage the resources  available to address  needs  at
individual sites.

EPA has developed an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI
and to identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the
upcoming years.  Under this  initiative, EPA is exploring different options for leveraging the
Superfund  removal and Brownfield  authorities  to further advance  cleanup  and  reuse  of
contaminated sites.  This is just one of several examples of the efforts undertaken through this
new initiative. Collectively, the actions establish a framework of activities, milestone dates, and
deliverables that will effectively  address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate the
                                          753

-------
pace of cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase information transparency across all of EPA's
cleanup programs.
The FY 2012 request includes a net $7.4 million reduction in Regional response activities.  This
reduction will be primarily applied to Superfund-lead action removals while EPA continues to
focus on encouraging PRPs to conduct removal actions  and  undertakes an effort to identify
efficiencies in program operations and management.

As part of the President's Open Government Initiative, EPA is working to improve the ways in
which  the Agency communicates important information back to the community.   One tool
developed to achieve this goal is  a  Sampling  Methodology  Scale that  provides  easy-to-
understand, color-coded information on contamination levels that exceed certain thresholds (e.g.,
red,  yellow  and green). This scale was field tested  during the  Deepwater Horizon Oil  Spill
Response, and prior to that at  a Region 1 removal site, as well  as during a lead abatement at
EPA's Headquarters facility. From these successful field tests, EPA will be deploying this tool
more broadly. Each Regional Office also will continue to provide site-specific information about
removal activities via the website: http://www.epaosc.org/.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(132) Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually.
FY 2010
Target
170
FY 2010
Actual
199
FY2011
CR
Target
170
FY 2012
Target
170
Units
Removals

Measure
Type

Efficiency


Measure
(136) Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually per
million dollars.

FY 2010
Target

0.95


FY 2010
Actual

1.96

FY2011
CR
Target

0.96


FY 2012
Target

0.97


Units

Removals

Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(135) PRP removal
completions (including
voluntary, AOC, and
UAO actions) overseen
by EPA.
FY 2010
Target
170
FY 2010
Actual
192
FY2011
CR
Target
170
FY 2012
Target
170
Units
Removals
                                          754

-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(Cl) Score on annual
Core NAR.
FY 2010
Target
55
FY 2010
Actual
87.9
FY2011
CR
Target
60
FY 2012
Target
70
Units
Percent
With aggressive enforcement, EPA has been able to compel PRPs to conduct additional removal
actions. In FY  2012,  EPA will oversee  170 PRP  removal actions (including  voluntary,
Administrative Order on Consent [AOC], and Unilateral Administrative Order [UAO] actions).
In addition, EPA will conduct 170 Superfund-lead removal actions.

For several years,  EPA implemented an  annual assessment of its  response  and removal
preparedness, known as Core Emergency Response (ER).  Several  years ago Core National
Approach to Response  (NAR)  replaced  Core  ER.   Core  NAR addresses agency-wide
implementation of EPA's NAR and measures progress towards  being  ready to  respond to
multiple nationally significant events. The Core NAR criteria are based on items found in EPA's
Homeland  Security Priority Workplan  and the NAR Preparedness Plan.   There are three
components of Core NAR:  headquarters, Regional offices, and Special Teams.  The target for
FY 2012 is a readiness score of 70 percent.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$1,143.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (+$200.0  / +1.5  FTE) This  change reflects the associated payroll with 1.5 Regional FTE
       redirected from the Superfund Remedial  program to the Superfund Emergency Response
       and Removal Program to support increased removal assessments  and oversight  due to
       state budget shortfalls.

   •   (-$81.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to  reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

   •   (-$5,671.0)  This reflects  a  reduction in Regional response activities.  The Agency will
       endeavor  to find efficiencies and lessen the  impact of this reduction. This reduction will
       be primarily applied to Superfund-lead action  removals while EPA  continues to focus on
       encouraging PRPs to conduct removal actions.

   •   (-$3,026.0)  This reflects a reduction as  part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of  spending for efficiencies  and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel,  general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-12.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs  to better reflect utilization
       rates.
                                          755

-------
Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, 42 USC
9601 et seq. - Sections 104, 105 and 106
                                        756

-------
                                              Superfund:  EPA Emergency Preparedness
                                                        Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$9,632.0
$9,632.0
44.1
FY2010
Actuals
$9,667.5
$9,667.5
40.9
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$9,632.0
$9,632.0
44.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$9,263.0
$9,263.0
40.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($369.0)
($369.0)
-3.9
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 Framework (NRF), which provides the comprehensive federal structure for managing
national emergencies. EPA is the designated lead for the NRF's Oil and Hazardous Materials
Response Annex - Emergency Support Function #10 which covers 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  13  Regional
Response Teams (RRTs) throughout the United States.  These teams coordinate the actions of
federal, state, local, and tribal partners to prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies. The
Superfund EPA Emergency Preparedness program supports the Agency's priorities of building
state and tribal partnerships and cleaning up communities.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Preparedness on a national level  is essential to ensure that EPA, other federal agencies, and state,
local and tribal emergency responders are able to deal with multiple emergencies.  This program
will  continue to  enhance the Agency's readiness capabilities in FY 2012 through ongoing
internal and external training exercises and coordination with those agencies.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue  to chair and provide administrative and logistical support to the
NRT and co-chair the multiple RRTs throughout the  United States.  The NRT and RRTs
coordinate federal partner actions to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from releases
of hazardous substances, terrorist  attacks,  major disasters, 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.
                                          757

-------
Building on current efforts to enhance national emergency response management, NRT agencies
will  continue implementation of the  National Incident Management System (NIMS) and  the
NRF.  NRT  agencies will improve  notification and response procedures, develop  response
technical assistance documents, implement and test incident command/unified command systems
across all levels of government and the private sector, and assist in the development of Regional
Contingency Plans and Local Area Plans.

In FY  2012,  EPA will participate in training and  exercises to  continue fostering a working
relationship between state, local, tribal, and federal responders implementing the system.  EPA
will  participate in the development of scenario-specific national and regional  level plans to
respond to large scale 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 NRF.  When activated under
the NRF,  EPA supports  activities at the NRT,  RRTs, Domestic  Readiness Group, and  the
National Operations Center.

Additionally,  EPA is  collecting and  analyzing lessons  learned  from the Deepwater Horizon
(DWH) response.  The Agency is interested in applying DWH  lessons learned to general
practices on EPA's overall  response  readiness.   Feedback is being provided by the Response
Support Corps volunteers, as well as Emergency Operations Center (EOCs) and field workers in
Regions 4  and 6 and at Headquarters.  EPA (as chair of the NRT) is working with the vice chair,
the United States Coast Guard (USCG), on leading the effort to develop an NRT lessons learned
report.  EPA  also is working with USCG on developing a senior level cross-agency report that
addresses higher level interagency coordination during the response.

The FY 2012 request includes a $500 thousand reduction in support for the NRT and RRTs that
support the NRF.  This reduction is not expected to directly impede performance, but may reduce
the level and speed of coordination with other agencies as well as support to state programs.

As part of its  strategy for improving effectiveness, the Agency will continue to improve response
readiness in FY 2012 through information obtained from the Agency's National Approach to
Response (NAR). EPA's NAR ensures efficient use of emergency response assets within  the
Agency by maintaining highly  skilled technical personnel  in  the  field  and  ensuring their
readiness to respond to releases of dangerous materials without compromising health and safety.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the Restore Land objective under Goal 3.  Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$261.0)  This increase reflects the  recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.
                                          758

-------
    •   (-$34.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an  effort to reduce  the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$500.0)  This  reflects  a reduction in interagency participation with committees  and
       workgroups that support the National Response Framework system. This reduction to the
       program is not expected to directly impede performance.

    •   (-$96.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for  efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work to  redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-3.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of  total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and  Liability Act, as  amended, 42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq.  - Sections  104,  105 and  106; Robert T.  Stafford Disaster Relief  and
Emergency Assistance  Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
                                           759

-------
                                                            Superfund:  Federal Facilities
                                                         Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                                Objective(s): Restore Land
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$32,105.0
$32,105.0
144.1
FY2010
Actuals
$33,605.0
$33,605.0
148.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$32,105.0
$32,105.0
144.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$26,242.0
$26,242.0
142.2
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($5,863.0)
($5,863.0)
-1.9
Program Project Description:

The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program oversees the protective and efficient cleanup
and reuse of federal facility sites. Nationwide, there are thousands of federal facilities that are
contaminated with hazardous waste, military munitions, radioactive waste, 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 military installations, abandoned mine sites,
nuclear weapons production facilities, and landfills.  EPA fulfills a number of statutory and
regulatory obligations at federal facilities, including  assessing sites for potential listing on the
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL), conducting oversight at NPL sites  where cleanup is
being completed by other federal agencies such  as the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Department of Energy (DOE), enforcing statutorily required federal facility agreements (FF As),
and maintaining the federal agency hazardous waste compliance docket.

EPA's oversight authority helps provide for an independent assessment of federal cleanups that
ensures work being conducted by the other federal agencies is in agreement with the site cleanup
plans.  Although other federal agencies are designated as the lead for the cleanup actions at their
sites,  EPA  is responsible for activities  such  as:  1) reviewing and  finalizing  site cleanup
documents;  2) participating in site meetings with the affected communities; and 3) monitoring
timelines and schedules as outlined in the FFAs to ensure federal agencies are more efficient and
accountable in protecting human health and the environment. These FFAs state that EPA has the
final decision making authority for remedy selection to ensure the protection of human health
and the environment from  releases of hazardous substances.  Decision documents  that support
final remedy selection are subject to independent review and assessment by EPA in accordance
with the milestones and timeframes established in the FFA.

EPA is also currently providing oversight at non-NPL mining sites (including  mixed ownership
sites),  and FUDS (e.g.,  Spring Valley site in Washington,  DC).  At the request of states and
communities, and based on the characteristics, EPA's also provides oversight activities and non-
NPL sites that are consistent with efforts at NPL sites, scaled as appropriate.
                                           760

-------
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program also provides technical assistance to other
federal entities,  states, tribes, and local  governments, and continues to engage  communities
during the cleanup of federal properties.  The program ensures statutory responsibilities related
to the transfer  of  contaminated federal properties  at  NPL  sites  are  protective.    Such
responsibilities include the approval authority for transfers prior to implementation of remedies
(i.e., early transfer at NPL sites),  and for 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, the extent of contamination, ongoing facility operations needs, complex community
involvement requirements, and complexities related to the redevelopment of the facilities.

EPA and DOD are engaged  in a project aimed at harmonizing cleanup and reporting metrics at
federal Superfund sites.  The EPA/DOD Goal Harmonization Workgroup, which was established
in FY 2009,  provides a process for the two agencies to work collaboratively to determine a
consistent,  transparent approach to  performance measures currently  used to indicate progress
across cleanup programs.  One example  of the efforts of this workgroup was to combine the
cleanup schedules from  DOD military munitions  sites into EPA's construction completion
schedules for corresponding NPL sites.   This effort should minimize any major impacts to
construction completion dates for these sites.

The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program supports the Agency's priorities of cleaning
up communities  and building strong state  and tribal partnerships.  For more information about
the program, please refer to

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

At NPL properties that remain under federal jurisdiction and control, EPA will continue assisting
and holding accountable  other federal agencies to ensure the cleanup remedies are  protective.
EPA's oversight responsibilities at federal facility sites are consistent with private party cleanups
and are required by law.  As part  of the Agency's Community Engagement Initiative, EPA will
improve  collaboration, communication and outreach  to states and  local governments,  tribes,
communities, and transferees. In October 2010, EPA hosted a Federal  Facility Cleanup Dialogue
(dialogue) which provided an opportunity for a diverse array  of stakeholders to discuss the
progress, achievements and challenges surrounding the cleanup of federally-owned contaminated
sites.  Representatives from DOD, DOE, the Department of Agriculture, and Department of the
Interior participated  in the dialogue.  EPA will  continue to foster  a dialogue between  other
federal agencies  and interested stakeholders to establish improved community engagement and
trust between federal, state, local and tribal governments,  and the local communities.

In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA  initiated  a  multi-year integrated cleanup initiative  (ICI) in FY 2010.   The
initiative will better utilize  EPA's  assessment and cleanup  authorities,  in an  integrated and
transparent fashion, to address a  greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate the pace of
cleanups  where possible, and put  those sites back into productive use while protecting human
health and the environment.  By coordinating the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup
programs  (Superfund Remedial,  and Federal Facilities;  Brownfields; Underground  Storage
                                           761

-------
Tanks and RCRA Corrective Action), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address
needs at individual federal facility sites.

EPA has developed an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI
and to identify ongoing or new  actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the
upcoming years. In addition to help track the impact of the program, EPA has introduced a new
annual performance Superfund measure, Remedial Action Project Completions, which includes
federal facilities sites and will  enable us to further demonstrate progress at various stages of the
cleanup and further optimize the work within the cleanup pipeline.

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue focusing on achieving site-wide construction completions,
accelerating cleanups, promoting reuse of properties  under the jurisdiction  of the federal
government, and ensuring appropriate community involvement at federal facilities on the NPL.
As of October 2010, there were:   173 final, of which 15 have been deleted. In addition, for the
universe of NPL federal facilities, 82 have a final remedy selected, 69 had achieved site-wide
construction completion, and 40 have been identified as site-wide ready for anticipated use. Also
in the Federal Facilities Response program, EPA is providing oversight and technical assistance
for 390 ongoing remedial  investigations/feasibility studies and 192 ongoing remedial actions  at
NPL federal sites.  While there have not been many  new federal facility sites listed on the NPL
in recent years, the program still has a significant amount of work in the pipeline at a large
number of NPL sites.  For example, more than half of the 173 federal facility sites on  the NPL
have not reached construction complete (60%), and more than half of the sites still have records
of decision remaining to be signed (53%).
                                  NPL Federal Facilities by Agency

                                         Other
                               DOE
                           DLA
                        Air Force
                                                              Navy
                                                        Army
Source:  CERCLIS data as of October 2010.
*Other includes: Coast Guard (1), COE (1), DOI (2), DOT (1), EPA (1), FAA (1), NASA (2), National Guard (1), SBA (1), and
USDA (2).

Recognizing fiscal constraints, the FY 2012 request includes a net  $5.9 million  reduction that
will be applied primarily to EPA's work at non-NPL sites to minimize impacts in meeting our
                                           762

-------
statutory requirements at federal NPL sites. Additional possible effects include, for example: (1)
curtailing EPA's oversight and technical assistance at federal NPL sites, (2) delays in document
reviews, and (3) reductions to perform site assessments and new NPL listings.  Combined with
the reduction to the Superfund Remedial program, the Agency's ability to achieve goals such as
the annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed could also be affected
going forward.

EPA will continue to take actions to improve program management and increase  efficiency in
other  areas.  In FY 2012 and as part of the Agency's Contract 2010 initiative, EPA will review
how to reduce the overhead cost associated with the Superfund  Federal Facilities Response
program. This endeavor is to find efficiencies in EPA contracting and related processes used to
support the program (e.g., contracts, interagency agreements, and cooperative agreements).

In FY 2012, EPA will continue strengthening oversight and technical assistance, as appropriate,
at DOD's military munitions response sites that are on the NPL.  These military munitions
response sites  contain unique chemical and explosive  compounds.  Emerging contaminants and
human health hazards, such as vapor intrusion, require direct EPA oversight as federal agencies
reopen various site assessment and cleanup activities to address such contamination. The human
health and environmental issues surrounding emerging contaminants sites will  require federal
agencies to fulfill  their responsibilities under the law and for EPA to oversee  and ensure the
protectiveness  of those actions.

To ensure the long-term protectiveness  of the remedies, EPA  will continue monitoring and
overseeing the progress and improving the quality and consistency of five-year reviews being
conducted at federal sites where waste has been left in place and land use is restricted. Although
the other federal agencies are responsible for writing the five-year review report and making a
determination of whether the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment,
EPA's role is to review the report and make an independent assessment of whether the remedy
remains protective. In FY 2012, EPA will review,  concur and ensure the protectiveness of
approximately  30 federal NPL  five-year review reports in order to fulfill statutory  requirements
and to inform  the  public  regarding the protectiveness of remedies at those NPL sites.  EPA is
required to report annually to Congress on the status of five-year reviews.

The Agency also will continue supporting DOD at select Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
installations that have been closed or realigned during  the first four rounds of BRAC (BRAC I -
IV).   This  includes,  but is not  limited  to, meeting  and expediting statutory  obligations for
overseeing cleanup and facilitating property transfer.  EPA's BRAC  I - IV accelerated cleanup
program continues to be funded by  DOD through an interagency  agreement. EPA's FY 2012
request does not include additional support for BRAC-related services to DOD at those facilities
affected by the fifth round of BRAC in 2005.

For several years,  EPA has been strengthening its partnerships with other federal agencies to
achieve long-term environmental goals.   As part  of  the EPA/DOD Goal  Harmonization
Workgroup, EPA and DOD will formalize and align their common measures and continue to
implement improvements in the work planning process.  These efforts along with partnerships
with other federal  agencies will  continue in FY 2012.  In addition, EPA's  Superfund Federal
                                          763

-------
Facilities Response program recently completed a historical planning and data accomplishment
analysis aimed at improving the accuracy of regional target-setting for site cleanup milestones.
EPA will continue implementing the results of the analysis in FY 2012.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports performance results in the  Superfund Remedial  program
project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$486.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$9.0 / +1.2 FTE) This reflects a net change in resources as a result of reducing $179.0 in
       contract costs to fund $166.0 for associated payroll and $4.0 related support costs for an
       additional 1.2 FTE redirected from the BRAC program to the Federal Facilities Response
       program.  The additional FTE will support key Agency initiatives including: Contracts
       2010, the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, and the Community Engagement Initiative.

    •   (-$4,967.0 / -16.0 FTE) This reduction recognizes fiscal  constraints, will  be applied
       primarily to EPA's work at non-NPL sites to minimize impacts in meeting our  statutory
       requirements  at federal NPL sites, and  may  slow down the Agency's oversight of the
       steps that lead to being ready for construction.   The reduced resources including  16.0
       FTE and associated payroll of $2208.0.

    •   (-$1,162.0) This reduction  implements an Agency review to streamline oversight of our
       Federal partners and to find program efficiencies in data management support.

    •   (-$19.0) This decrease in  travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$192.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing, and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to  redesign processes and streamline activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+17.9 FTE)  This change  reflects a redirection  of  reimbursable FTE from  the BRAC
       program to the Federal Facilities Response program. The additional FTE will support
       increased workload needs at non-BRAC  I-IV sites, such as the U.S. Military's buildup in
       Guam, DOE and U.S. Coast Guard. Sufficient reimbursable FTE are retained to support
       BRAC program needs, which continue to decline  as more BRAC sites  are cleaned up or
       transferred.
                                          764

-------
   •   (-3.2 FTE) This reflects a conversion of reimbursable FTE from the BRAC program to
       appropriated  FTE  for the  Federal  Facilities Response  program,  RCRA  Waste
       Management program and the  Superfund Remedial program.  This change reflects EPA's
       workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills
       and Agency priorities as the BRAC sites are cleaned up. Sufficient reimbursable FTE are
       retained to support BRAC program needs.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,  as amended, 42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq. - Section  120; the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Section 7003; and the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Acts  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.
                                         765

-------
                                                                  Superfund:  Remedial
                                                        Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$0.0
$605,438.0
944.2
FY2010
Actuals
$693,835.2
$688,644.9
$5,190.3
$693,835.2
980.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$605,438.0
$605,438.0
$0.0
$605,438.0
944.2
FY2012
Pres Budget
$574,499.0
$574,499.0
$0.0
$574,499.0
931.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($30,939.0)
($30,939.0)
$0.0
($30,939.0)
-13.2
Program Project Description:

In order to make our  communities  safer and  healthier, the  Superfund Remedial  program
addresses  risks to human health and the environment resulting  from releases of hazardous
substances at Superfund sites. Superfund sites with contaminated soil, sediment, surface water,
and groundwater exist nationally in hundreds of communities and can encompass very large land
areas.  Many of these sites are located in urban areas and may therefore  expose higher numbers
of sensitive populations to  contamination.  Remediating contaminated groundwater, surface
water, sediment, and soil can be technically challenging and costly. Some Superfund sites require
decades to  clean  up due to site-specific physical  characteristics; their  associated unique
contamination footprints; the political, community, and legal complexities involved in addressing
the site; and the resources required to clean up the site.  For some sites, removing or destroying
all of the contamination  is not possible, and residual contamination needs to be managed on-site,
creating the need for site-specific long-term stewardship activities.

The Superfund Remedial program manages the risks to human health and the environment posed
by these uncontrolled hazardous wastes at the nation's highest priority sites through  carefully
selected cleanup, stabilization, or other actions.  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 releases are addressed by adding sites to the National Priorities
       List (NPL);

   •   engage with local communities as each site goes through the Superfund response process;

   •   conduct or oversee investigations and studies to select remedies;
                                          766

-------
   •   design and construct or oversee construction of remedies and post-construction activities
       at non-federal facility sites;

   •   control human  exposures  to  contamination and prevent the spread of contaminated
       groundwater;

   •   ensure long-term protectiveness of remedies by overseeing operations and maintenance
       and conducting five-year reviews;

   •   work  with states, communities,  and  responsible parties  to  implement  appropriate
       institutional controls  to protect engineered  remedies, prevent inappropriate misuse of
       remediated sites, and limit unsafe exposures;

   •   delete sites (or parts of sites) from the NPL where appropriate;

   •   identify where sites can be made available for reuse; and

   •   work collaboratively  with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and
       communities from the  time a site is  discovered until it is cleaned up and returned to
       productive reuse in a community.

The Superfund Remedial  program supports the Agency's priorities of cleaning up communities
and building state and tribal partnerships.  For more information about the Superfund Remedial
program     and    its    community    involvement    resources,     please    refer    to
http ://www. epa.gov/superfund.

The Superfund  Remedial program received funding in the FY 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). These funds have been obligated and will continue to be outlayed as
construction activities proceed at the sites and contractors performing the work submit invoices
for reimbursement to EPA.   The Agency has outlayed close to 75%  of their ARRA funds.
Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov/.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the  Superfund  remedial  program's  top  priority remains reducing risk to human
health and the environment by constructing long-term remedies to address contaminated sites on
the NPL. EPA will continue to address complicated environmental and human health problems
such as contaminated soils in residential areas and  contaminated sediments, surface water and
groundwater.   The  Agency's  goal  is ultimately  to provide long-term  human  health and
environmental protection at the nation's most  contaminated hazardous  waste sites,  and return
sites to communities for reuse.  In addition to its cleanup work, the Superfund Remedial program
will,  where  appropriate,  undertake  interim  response  actions  to protect people  and the
environment from the  acute threats posed by uncontrolled hazardous wastes or contaminated
groundwater. These efforts demonstrate EPA's commitment to protecting human health and the
environment from possible short- and long-term effects of site-related contamination.
                                          767

-------
Superfund Site Activity as of 1/18/11
                49.261 Site Universe
 • Active Sin*
   (13.566)

 • Archived Sites
   (35.705)

                                 13.556 Active Sites
         • NPI. (1.627)
          I hkxvNPL Active (11.929 62
          Proposed)
                     a Study Pending (13 - 4 w/Rv)

                     • Study or Design (191 • 131 w,'Rv)

                     j CoratniGton Underway (320)

                     • Cnrsl'urtinn Completed (CC) (1.100)

                     • Detolee Deferred (3)
                                              1.627 NPL Sites (1 280 Final. 347 Deleted)
                                                                  1.100 Construction Completed Sites
                                          ^ CC and Deleted (344)


                                          • CC and ml Deleted (756)
Progress is determined by Most Advanced Operable Unit.
Chart results generated from CERCLIS data.

EPA will continue to assess actual or potential releases at sites where EPA has been notified by
states, tribes,  community  members,  other  federal  agencies,  or other sources  of a potential
hazardous waste site or incident.  EPA conducts a series of progressively more complex remedial
assessments at these sites to determine whether cleanup is needed under Superfund or  another
cleanup  authority.  At the beginning of FY 2012, the Agency expects to have performed  a
cumulative  total  of 89,700 Superfund remedial  assessments.   EPA plans to complete  900
Superfund remedial site assessments in FY  2012.  This new strategic measure accounts for all
remedial  assessments performed at sites addressed  under the Superfund  program whereas our
previous  2006-2011 measure only  captured a  subset of these assessments  (i.e.,  the  final
assessments completed at sites).  By capturing the assessment work leading  to final assessment
decisions, including the initial screening assessments to determine Superfund eligibility, the new
measure more fully accounts  for the work performed during  the Superfund site assessment
process.
                                             768

-------
For those sites requiring additional federal actions to protect human health and the environment,
EPA's NPL identifies sites that contain priority releases for long-term remedial evaluation and
response. Only sites on the NPL are eligible for Fund-financed remedial action.  Sites posing
immediate risks, whether on the NPL or not, may be addressed under the Superfund Emergency
Response and Removal program. In FY 2012, EPA will continue investigating sites to determine
the best approach to address these sites, including listing them on the NPL.  EPA expects there
will be two final NPL rule makings during FY 2012.

At NPL sites, EPA will continue with remedial activities that include remedial investigations and
feasibility studies to review  site conditions and evaluate strategies for cleanup,  taking into
consideration reasonably anticipated future  land use.  Multiple cleanup actions are required at
many sites to address all the contamination.  In FY 2012, a significant number of sites will
require completion of 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.  The Agency will continue to engage the community from the time a site is  discovered until
it is cleaned  up in all aspects of its decision-making, remedy implementation and construction
activities.

EPA maintains  direct site support services to support the scientific integrity in the  Agency's
decision-making process for site cleanup alternatives.  The Agency provides reliable and high
quality analytical services for use at sites through the Contract Laboratory  Program, Regional
labs, and special analytical services and analyses and maintains an Environmental  Response
Team which is available to support the  site-specific  needs of emergency responders, on-scene
coordinators, and remedial project managers in conducting assessments,  investigations and
clean-ups.  EPA also ensures the professional  development of its staff through an  extensive
technical training program which is also available to  states, tribes, and our federal partners and
employs  an active and comprehensive technology assessment and integration  program to provide
staff with information on new  technologies,  direct site  support to  employ technologies,
technology training, and support to optimize the clean-up process.

Prior to remedy construction, EPA conducts the remedial design (RD) for the site cleanup where
the technical specifications for cleanup  remedies and technologies are designed based on  the
Record   of  Decision  (ROD).   The  RD   is a  series  of  engineering  reports,  documents,
specifications, and drawings that detail the steps to be taken to meet the goals established in  the
ROD.  The RD may include sampling, pilot  tests and treatability studies. Following the RD,  the
actual construction  or implementation of the cleanup remedy, called the Remedial Action, will
be performed by EPA (or states with EPA funding)  or potentially responsible parties  (PRPs)
under EPA or state oversight.

EPA is committed to providing resources  to maintain construction progress at all projects17,
including large and complicated remedial projects, once construction has started.  Funding  for
EPA  Superfund construction  projects  is  critical to  achieving  risk reduction,  construction
17 Projects represent discrete actions taken to implement a site cleanup remedy as described in the Record of Decision. They are
typically defined to address discrete problems, such as specific media (e.g., groundwater contamination), areas of a site (e.g.,
discrete areas of contamination), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction). A given remedy may contain multiple
actions or projects depending on the nature of the remedy selected.


                                            769

-------
completion, and restoration of contaminated sites to allow productive reuse.  In FY 2012, EPA
will continue to work to improve long-term planning construction estimates, including planning
for the use of resources received from settlements with PRPs that have been placed  in special
accounts for future response work.

In an effort to  improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness  of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated  cleanup initiative (ICI) in FY 2010 to better
utilize EPA's assessment and cleanup authorities, in  an integrated and transparent fashion, to
address  a greater number  of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups where possible, and  put
those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment.  By
coordinating the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial,
Removal,  and  Federal Facilities; Brownfields;  Underground  Storage  Tanks;  and RCRA
Corrective Action),  EPA  will  better leverage the resources available to address  needs at
individual sites.

EPA has developed an implementation plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the  ICI
and to identify  ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during  the
upcoming years.   One action being taken involves considering  adding a  new  screening
mechanism  to  the  Hazard Ranking System  (HRS) enabling sites with  vapor  intrusion
contamination to be evaluated for placement on the NPL.  This is just one of several examples of
the efforts undertaken  through this new initiative.   Collectively,  the actions establish a
framework of activities, milestone dates, and deliverables that will effectively address a greater
number of contaminated sites, accelerate the pace of cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase
information transparency across all of EPA's cleanup programs.

Through ICI, EPA is pursuing program efficiencies to improve the management of the program
and  increase joint efforts among programs, as well  as defining  and implementing new
performance  measures that further describe the achievement  of  EPA's cleanup  programs.
Beginning in  FY 2011, EPA is reporting on the new measure "Number of Remedial Action (RA)
Project Completions  at NPL Sites", to augment the historical site-wide construction completion
measure.  This new measure will enable us to demonstrate incremental progress in reducing risk
to human health and the environment at sites.  The initial efforts to develop the new measure
began in FY  2010 with the creation of reporting tools  and  expanded guidance that clarifies  the
definition and scope of an "RA Project." A national workgroup of senior program managers also
has been  created in order to evaluate best management  practices and oversee the efficient
delivery of RA  projects in  support of the new measure.  The FY 2012 target for this measure is
113 RA Project Completions, including Fund-financed, ARRA funded, Responsible Party-lead,
and Federal Facilities projects.

EPA will continue to track site-wide construction completions as an interim measure of progress
toward making  sites  ready for reuse and achieving long term cleanup  goals.  Sites qualify  for
construction  completion when  physical  construction of  all cleanup  actions  are  complete,
including  actions to address  all immediate  threats and to bring all long-term threats under
control.  In FY  2012, EPA will work to achieve construction completion at 22 additional sites, a
portion which are being funded with ARRA monies. This will bring the program's cumulative
total to 1,145 sites. EPA has experienced challenges with achieving the construction completion
                                          770

-------
target, primarily as a result of a shrinking universe of candidate sites which are generally larger
and more complex than sites in the past.  The RA Project Completions measure will demonstrate
that  work is still continuing at these larger sites  and that  the potential  hazards  are being
addressed.

Recognizing fiscal constraints, the FY 2012 request  includes a net $30.9 million reduction that
will be applied primarily to new construction activities, adding new construction projects to an
anticipated backlog of unfunded new  construction  projects from FY 2011.   The Superfund
Program is  exploring program efficiencies  that can be  made  but  will  have  to  consider
adjustments  to ongoing construction project schedules, including reductions to  several large
projects' annual funding allocations.   Additional possible  effects  include:  (1) curtailing site
assessment and characterization projects that may affect new additions to the NPL, (2) slowing
the pace of remedy decisions at existing sites, and (3) reductions to analytical services support.
Combined with the reduction to the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program, the ability
to achieve goals  such as the annual  number  of Superfund  sites with  remedy  construction
completed could also be affected going forward.

In FY 2012, EPA will  continue consolidating two data systems,  the  Superfund Document
Management System and the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) with plans to
consolidate  the  Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,  Compensation,   and  Liability
Information  System  into SEMS thereafter.  These two consolidation efforts will increase
efficiency in contracting and program management as well  as create  a holistic  view  of the
Superfund program.   In addition,  in FY 2012 and as part  of the Agency's Contract 2010
initiative,  EPA will  continue to take actions to improve program management and increase
efficiency in other areas such as reducing overhead costs and finding efficiencies in contracting
and related processes used to support the program.

EPA will  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. A significant statutorily required post-construction activity is a Five-Year Review,
which generally is necessary when hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that permit
unrestricted  use  and  unlimited  exposure.  Five-Year Reviews  are  used to  evaluate the
implementation and performance of all components of the implemented remedy and to determine
whether the  remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.  The Five-Year
Review includes not  only the physical remedy itself, but also institutional controls necessary to
manage the  use of  the  site.   EPA develops  an annual Report to Congress describing the
protectiveness of remedies as found through Five-Year Reviews including those conducted by
federal  agencies and reviewed by  EPA through the  Superfund Federal Facilities  Response
program. In recent years, EPA has made significant improvements in the tracking and evaluation
of institutional  controls including launching a publicly  accessible database.  In FY 2012, EPA
plans to conduct over 200 Five-Year Reviews.

The future use of NPL sites plays an important role in revitalizing communities and ensuring the
long-term  protection  of human health and the environment. While cleaning up these sites, EPA
is working with communities and other partners in considering and integrating appropriate future
use opportunities into remedy options.  The Agency also  is  working with communities at sites
                                          771

-------
that have already been remediated to ensure long-term stewardship of site remedies and to create
opportunities for reuse. The Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use measure communicates that all
cleanup goals for an entire site have been  achieved for both current and reasonably anticipated
future land uses.  The measure reflects the high priority EPA places on land revitalization as an
integral part of the Agency's mission for the Superfund program  as well as the priority EPA is
now placing on post-construction activities at NPL sites.  In FY 2012, EPA expects to achieve a
net total of 65 sites qualified for this designation bringing the program's cumulative total to 604
sites that are ready for re-use.

EPA reports against two environmental  indicator measures to  document progress achieved
toward  providing short-  and long-term  human  health protection.    The Human Exposure
environmental indicator is designed to document the progress achieved toward providing long-
term human health  protection by measuring the incremental  progress  achieved in controlling
unacceptable current human exposures at NPL  sites.  In FY 2012, EPA plans to achieve  control
of all identified unacceptable human exposures at a net total of 10 additional sites, bringing the
program's cumulative total to  1,349 sites  under control.  The Migration of Contaminated
Groundwater Under Control environmental  indicator  applies to  NPL sites  with contaminated
groundwater and  serves to document whether contamination falls within the levels specified as
safe by EPA, or if they do not, whether the migration of contaminated groundwater is stabilized,
and there is no groundwater discharge to surface water.  In FY 2012, EPA expects  to 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 1,056
sites under control.

The  Agency strives  to ensure that its activities use  natural resources and energy efficiently,
reduce negative impacts on the environment, minimize or eliminate pollution at its source, and
reduce waste to the greatest  extent possible.  In FY 2012, EPA  will  continue its efforts to
advance green remediation practices and identify new opportunities and tools to make "greener"
decisions across Superfund cleanup sites.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(115) Number of
Superfund remedial
site assessments
completed.

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target

900


FY 2012
Target

900


Units

Assessments


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(141) Annual number
of Superfund sites with
remedy construction
completed.

FY 2010
Target

22


FY 2010
Actual

18

FY2011
CR
Target

22


FY 2012
Target

22


Units

Completions

                                          772

-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(151) Number of
Superfund sites with
human exposures
under control.
FY 2010
Target
10
FY 2010
Actual
18
FY2011
CR
Target
10
FY 2012
Target
10
Units
Sites

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(152) Superfund sites
with contaminated
groundwater migration
under control.

FY 2010
Target

15


FY 2010
Actual

18

FY2011
CR
Target

15


FY 2012
Target

15


Units

Sites


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(170) Number of
remedial action project
completions at
Superfund NPL Sites.

FY 2010
Target




FY 2010
Actual



FY2011
CR
Target

103


FY 2012
Target

113


Units

Completions


Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(S 10) Number of
Superfund sites ready
for anticipated use site-
wide.

FY 2010
Target

65


FY 2010
Actual

66

FY2011
CR
Target

65


FY 2012
Target

65


Units

Sites

The Superfund Remedial program reports its  activities and progress toward long-term human
health and  environmental protection via  several  measures that encompass the entire cleanup
process.  In FY 2010, the Superfund Remedial program met or exceeded all of its performance
measure targets, except for the construction completions measure. In FY 2012, the program
plans to continue to maintain progress achieving the program's long-term goals.  Beginning in
FY 2011, EPA will report on its new Superfund RA project completions measure to evaluate the
progress of cleanup activities between the time a  site is placed on the NPL and construction is
completed,  which often  spans multiple years due to the complexity of cleanup efforts.  In
addition,  in FY  2011, EPA also has begun reporting on its new  Superfund  remedial  site
assessments strategic measure.

Performance goals and measures for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program are a
component of the Superfund Remedial program's measures.
                                         773

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$2,025.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (-$5.0 / +1.0 FTE) This reflects a net change in non-payroll resources as a result of
       reducing $148.0 in contract costs to fund $138.0  for associated payroll and $5.0 related
       support  costs for an additional  1.0 FTE redirected from the BRAC program to the
       Superfund Remedial  program.  The additional FTE will provide contract  management
       oversight and provide support to the Agency's Contracts 2010 initiative.

    •   (-$200.0 / -1.5 FTE)  This change reflects the associated payroll with 1.5 Regional FTE
       redirected from the Superfund Remedial program  to the Superfund Emergency Response
       and Removal Program  to support increased  removal assessments and oversight due to
       state budget shortfalls.

    •   (+$133.0 / +1.0 FTE) This change reflects the associated payroll of 1 FTE to support the
       Agency's Healthy Communities initiative.  This FTE will coordinate with the U.S. Army
       Corps of Engineers on  sediment cleanup projects in urban waters which will  enable the
       Agency to leverage  resources  from our Federal partners  as part  of the overall  site
       cleanup.

    •   (-$23.0) This reflects a realignment of Agency IT and telecommunications resources for
       the  Computer  Security Incident  Response Center from   across  programs  to  the
       Information Security program.

    •   (-$175.0) This reflects a redirection of resources to Human Health and Ecosystems which
       funds  ECOTOX, a database for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic  life,
       terrestrial plans and wildlife.  Various  programs have contributed to  this program in the
       past.

    •   (-$527.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (-$4,419.0) This reduction  implements  an  Agency review  intended to  improve the
       effectiveness of our acquisition practices and  to realize contract efficiencies in areas such
       as data management support.

    •   (-$20,364.0) This reduction recognizes  fiscal constraints,  will postpone new remedial
       construction starts,  and may slow down steps that lead up to being ready for construction.

    •   (-$7,384.0) This reflects a reduction as part  of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets  certain  categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel, general  services, printing, and  supplies. EPA  will
       continue its work to redesign processes  and  streamline activities in  both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                           774

-------
   •   (-13.7 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation, and Liability Act,as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act , 42 U.S.C. 9601 et  seq. - Sections 104,  105
and 121.
                                         775

-------
                                          Superfund:  Support to Other Federal Agencies
                                                        Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                               Objective(s): Restore Land
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$5,858.0
$5,858.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($717.0)
($717.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

Other federal  agencies  are given responsibilities under the  Comprehensive  Environmental
Response, Compensation,  and Liability Act (CERCLA).  These  agencies provide numerous
Superfund-related  services which Superfund  resources  support.    Contributors include the
Department  of the Interior (DOT), the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration
(NOAA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The Superfund Support to Other Federal
Agencies program supports the Agency's priority of cleaning up communities.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to provide resources through interagency agreements to
support other federal agencies. The following table illustrates the levels of funding proposed to
be provided to each federal agency in EPA's FY 2012 request:

                             Other Federal Agency Funding
                                     ($ in thousands)
Agency
DOT
NOAA
USCG
TOTAL
FY 2010 Enacted
$546.0
$1,063.0
$4,966.0
$6,575.0
FY 2012 Pres Bud
$471.0
$916.0
$4,471.0
$5,858.0
Under the  EPA/DOI  interagency agreement,  DOT  provides  response preparedness  and
management assistance that supports the National Response Team/Regional  Response Teams
(NRT/RRTs), EPA's Special Units including the Environmental Response Team, the National
Decontamination Team, and the Radiation Response Team. In addition, DOT provides assistance
in the development and implementation of comprehensive  and environmentally protective
remedies at Superfund sites as well as  the coordination of natural  resource trustee agency18
  Natural Resource Trustees are outlined in CERCLA and have different, but complementary, roles and responsibilities. For
more information, please refer to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/fields.pdf.
                                          776

-------
support.  DOT provides technical assistance at Superfund sites in areas of their expertise, such as
ecological risk assessment, habitat mitigation, and identification of damages to natural resources.

Under the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement, EPA Regional Offices are  provided  access to
NOAA's  multidisciplinary technical  support  experts  in the fields  of coastal  remediation,
scientific  support coordination,  and response  management.   NOAA, which is also  a natural
resource trustee  agency,  provides site-specific  technical coordination support  during  site
investigations and  assistance  on  ecological   risk  assessments.  NOAA's experts produce
evaluations of risk to the environment and natural resources  from releases  at Superfund sites,
development and implementation of comprehensive environmentally  protective remedies to
minimize those risks, and coordination of trustee support.

Under the EPA/USCG interagency agreement,  USCG and EPA are federal  partners who share
lead responsibilities under 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 2012, EPA funding will continue  to support the USCG's
preparation efforts to respond to CERCLA incidents. Activities include:

    •   Support at the National Response Center;

    •   Maintenance and support at all USCG  District Marine Safety Units and the hazardous
       material Strike Team; and

    •   Training and exercise opportunities that the USCG and EPA and other  federal partners
       participate in to maintain response readiness.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the Restore Land Objective under Goal 3.  Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   ($-655.0) This reflects a decrease to contracts  to  better align  resources with Agency
       priorities.  This program reduction reduces support to such activities as the National
       Response Center and the USCG District Marine Safety Units; however, it is not expected
       to directly impede Superfund program performance.

    •   (-$62.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions,  including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing, and supplies. EPA will  continue its
       work  to  redesign processes  and  streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                           777

-------
Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq. - Sections 104, 105 and 120.
                                         778

-------
Program Area: Research Land Protection
                 779

-------
                                              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
Inland Oil Spills
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY2010
Actuals
$14,687.7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,334.0
$37,993.9
137.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($14,111.0)
($345.0)
($639.0)
($21,191.0)
($36, 286.0)
-154.7
Program Project Description:

EPA's Land Research Program provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to
protect America's land.  As such, this program is a vital  component of EPA's efforts to reduce
and control chemical risks to human health and the environment. 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, groundwater, and  site
characterization  issues.  The Research Program  also provides  site-specific  technical support
through EPA labs and centers, as well as liaisons located in each regional office.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions  to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years.  As science has advanced, EPA  is working towards an approach that allows the
Agency to  address  the  increasing  complexity of  21st  century  environmental  challenges.
Communities are increasingly  challenged to sustain the well-being  of their residents and the
benefits of nature upon which  they depend.   Changing demographics; urbanization; growing
waste streams; and  tighter budgets have exacerbated the challenges faced.  Local  officials are
finding that simply adding   one  more single-purpose,  single  media  solution  is  often
environmentally   inadequate,  economically  inefficient,   and  socially  unacceptable  to   key
stakeholders. Instead, a more systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed.

To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated research approach. This approach will look at problems from a
                                          780

-------
systems perspective to develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and
inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To  implement this new approach, EPA is integrating the Land Preservation and Restoration
Research Program with the Fellowships, Human Health and  Ecosystems, Sustainability, and
Pesticides and Toxics Research Programs into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Program. This new program is directly aligned with  EPA's new Strategic Plan structure and
capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPA's mission. Research to address targeted
cleanup challenges and provide technical support for contaminated Superfund sites will continue,
with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$479.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•   (+$62.0)   This represents a restoration  of resources  transferred in  FY  2010 to the
    Sustainability Research Program to support Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
    For SBIR, EPA  is  required to set aside  2.5  percent  of funding for contracts to small
    businesses to develop  and commercialize new environmental technologies.   After the FY
    2012 budget is enacted,  and the exact amount  of the mandated requirement is known, FY
    2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

•   (+$4.0)  This reflects adjustments to the Agency's technology infrastructure modernization
    plan (or Information Technology and telecommunications) resources. Realignment of these
    resources is based on FTE allocations.

•   (-$62.0)  This reflects the net result of realignments of FTE and resources such as critical
    equipment purchases and repairs, travel, contracts,  and general expenses to better align with
    programmatic priorities.   Realignments are based  on FTE allocations  as well as scientific
    equipment needs.

•   (-$65.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint
    by promoting green travel and conferencing.

•   (-$115.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
    initiative  targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies  and reductions, including
    advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
    work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
    areas to achieve these savings.

•   (-$225.0 / -0.6 FTE) This reflects  a reduction of programmatic support resources associated
    with the Land Research  Program.   This  change includes a decrease of $80.0 in associated
    payroll and reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that  will help the Agency better
    align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
                                           781

-------
•  (-$273.0 / -0.5 FTE) This reduction reflects savings from EPA's Administrative Efficiencies
   Project  (AEP),  a long-term  effort  to  develop  a  corporate  approach  to  delivering
   administrative services. This change includes a decrease of $67.0 in associated payroll and
   reflects  EPA's workforce management  strategy that  will  help  the agency  better  align
   resources, skills and Agency priorities.

•  (-$369.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's fixed costs.

•  (-$2,923.0 / -2.5  FTE) This reduction  reflects a decrease in scope  for planned research in
   groundwater remediation and contaminated sediments research, and includes a reduction of
   2.5 FTE with decreased associated payroll of $333.0. This change reflects EPA's workforce
   management strategy that will help the agency better align resources,  skills,  and Agency
   priorities.

•  (-$17,706.0 / -89.5 FTE)  This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources to the new
   Sustainable and Healthy  Communities Program and includes a transfer of $12,149.0 in
   associated  payroll.  This transfer  will  integrate  land  restoration  research  into  the
   transdisciplinary Sustainable and Healthy  Communities  Program that better aligns with the
   Administration and Agency priorities.  EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's
   ability to  deliver science more  effectively and  efficiently,  with  catalyzing innovative,
   sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

BRRERA, Subtitle A. Section 211; CERCLA, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read together
with Executive Order 12580, 42. U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615; CERCLA 104(i) and 42 U.S.C.
9660 - Sec. 311 (c) 42 U.S.C. 9602 -  Section 102, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read
together with Executive Order 12580, 42. U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615, Section 311, 42 U.S.C
9604 (i) (1); SARA 142 U.S.C. 7401 - Sec. 209 (a) and Sec. 403 (a,b).
                                           782

-------
Program Area: Research Sustainable Communities
                     783

-------
                                                                 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
FY2010
Enacted
$27, 287.0
$73.0
$27, 360.0
70.8
FY2010
Actuals
$25,807.8
$152.0
$29,959.8
73.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$27, 287.0
$73.0
$27, 360.0
70.8
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($27, 287.0)
($73.0)
($27, 360.0)
-70.8
Program Project Description:
                                                    19
Under the Small Business Research (SBIR)  Program,   as required  by the Small Business
Innovation Development  Act,  as  amended, ° EPA  sets aside 2.5 percent of its  extramural
research  budget  for contracts to  small  businesses to  develop  and  commercialize  new
environmental technologies.  Since its inception, EPA's SBIR Program has provided incentive
funding to small  businesses to translate their innovative ideas into commercial products that
address environmental problems. These innovations are the primary source of new technologies
that can provide improved environmental protection at lower cost with better performance and
effectiveness.
SBIR helped spawn successful commercial ventures that not only improve our environment, but
also create jobs,  increase productivity  and economic growth, and  enhance the international
competitiveness of the U.S.  technology industry.   SBIR,  the  only  activity contained in this
program, is not funded in FY 2012 under the Superfund account.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has  provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years.  As science has advanced, EPA is working towards an approach that allows the
Agency to address  the increasing complexity of 21st century environmental challenges.

To address this challenge, in FY 2012 EPA will  strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated research  approach.  This approach will look at problems from a
systems perspective to develop  a  deeper understanding of our environmental  challenges and
inform sustainable  solutions to our strategic goals.
19 For more information, see http://epa. gov/ncer/sbir.
20 Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-219), as reauthorized by P.L. 99-443, P.L. 102-564 (Small
Business Research and Development Act), and P.L.I 06-554 (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001).
                                           784

-------
To  implement this new approach this, EPA is integrating the Science and  Technology for
Sustainability Research Program into the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research
Program.  This new program is directly aligned with EPA's new Strategic Plan structure,  and
capitalizes on existing capabilities to accomplish EPA's mission. Research to address targeted,
existing problems and provide technical support will  continue, with an emphasized focus on
sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2011 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (-$73.0)   This reflects  an adjustment  for  Small  Business  Innovation  Research (SBIR).
    Enacted funding levels for this program include the amount EPA is required to set aside for
    contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies.
    This adjustment is necessary because the SBIR set aside, at this point in the budget cycle, is
    redistributed to other Research Programs in the President's Budget request.  After the FY
    2012 budget is enacted, and the exact amount of the mandated requirement is known, FY
    2012 funds will be transferred to the SBIR Program.

Statutory Authority:

BRERA; CERCLA, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read together with E. O. 12580, 42.
U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615;  CERCLA 104(i) and 42 U.S.C.  9660 - Sec.  311 (c) 42 U.S.C.
9602  - Section 102, Section 105(a) (4) and Section 115 read together with E. O. 12580, 42.
U.S.C. 9605 (a) (4) and 9615, Section 311, 42 U.S.C 9604 (i) (1); SARA 42 U.S.C. 7401 - Sec.
209 (a) and Sec. 403 (a,b); SBIDA, 15 U.S.C. §638, as amended.
                                         785

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Resource Summary Table	788
Program Projects in LUST	788
Program Area: Enforcement	790
   Civil Enforcement	791
Program Area: Compliance	793
   Compliance Assistance and Centers	794
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	796
   IT / Data Management	797
Program Area: Operations and Administration	799
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	800
   Acquisition Management	802
   Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	804
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)	806
   LUST/UST	807
   LUST Cooperative Agreements	810
   LUST Prevention	813
Program Area: Research Land Protection	815
   Research: Land Protection and Restoration	816
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities	818
   Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities	819
                                       786

-------
787

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 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
FY2010
Enacted

$113,101.0
75.3
FY2010
Actuals

$112,583.3
67.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$113,101.0
75.3
FY2012
Pres Budget

$112,481.0
64.3
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($620.0)
-11.0
                  Bill Language: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

For necessary  expenses  to  carry out  leaking underground storage  tank  cleanup  activities
authorized by subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, $112,481,000, to remain
available until expended,  of which $78,051,000 shall be for carrying out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended; $34,430,000 shall be for carrying out the other provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act specified in section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended: Provided,  That the
Administrator is  authorized  to  use  appropriations made available  under this  heading to
implement  section 9013 of the  Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide financial assistance to
federally recognized Indian  tribes for  the  development and implementation of programs to
manage underground storage tanks. Note.—A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was
not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is  operating under a
continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the
annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

                               Program Projects in LUST
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
FY2010
Enacted

$0.0

$797.0

$162.0
FY2010
Actuals

$0.0

$756.8

$152.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$0.0

$797.0

$162.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$832.0

$0.0

$0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$832.0

($797.0)

($162.0)
                                          788

-------
Program Project
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
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
UST)
LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST Prevention
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST/UST)
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable
and Healthy Communities
TOTAL, EPA
FY2010
Enacted


$696.0
$208.0
$904.0
$165.0
$1,115.0
$2,184.0

$11,613.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$109,613.0

$345.0
$345.0
$113,101.0
FY2010
Actuals


$696.0
$175.9
$871.9
$172.4
$1,312.0
$2,356.3

$17,901.7
$55,963.6
$35,030.1
$108,895.4

$422.5
$422.5
$112,583.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR


$696.0
$208.0
$904.0
$165.0
$1,115.0
$2,184.0

$11,613.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$109,613.0

$345.0
$345.0
$113,101.0
FY2012
Pres Budget


$696.0
$220.0
$916.0
$163.0
$512.0
$1,591.0

$11,982.0
$63,192.0
$34,430.0
$109,604.0

$454.0
$454.0
$112,481.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted


$0.0
$12.0
$12.0
($2.0)
($603.0)
($593.0)

$369.0
($378.0)
$0.0
($9.0)

$109.0
$109.0
($620.0)
789

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
           790

-------
                                                                      Civil Enforcement
                                                              Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY2010
Actuals
$145,896.6
$0.0
$2,082.8
$147,979.4
980.8
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY2012
Pres Budget
$191,404.0
$832.0
$2,902.0
$195,138.0
1,219.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$44,768.0
$832.0
$904.0
$46,504.0
230.5
Program Project Description:

To  protect  our nation's  groundwater  and drinking water  from  petroleum releases  from
Underground Storage Tanks  (UST), this program will  provide compliance assistance tools,
technical assistance and training to promote and enforce UST systems compliance and cleanups.1
The Civil  Enforcement program's overarching goal is to assure compliance with the nation's
environmental laws to protect human health and the environment.   The program collaborates
with the Department of Justice  and states,  local agencies and tribal governments to ensure
consistent and fair enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations.  The program seeks to
address violations that threaten communities, level the economic playing field by ensuring that
violators do not realize an economic benefit from noncompliance, and deter future violations.
The Civil  Enforcement program develops, litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial
cases   against  serious violators  of  environmental  laws.   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.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to integrate assistance  into its enforcement  and compliance
assurance  efforts.  The  Agency  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 and to promote UST cleanups.   The
Agency also will continue to provide guidance to foster the use of new technology to enhance
compliance.
 For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/index.htm.
                                          791

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Civil Enforcement Program
Project under EPM and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$35.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

   •   (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

   •   (+$797.0/ +4.8 FTE) This change in resources reflects the Agency's efforts to streamline
       and increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program by consolidating
       the Compliance Assistance  and Centers program with the Civil Enforcement program.
       The additional resources include $764.0 associated payroll for 4.8 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; RCRA.
                                         792

-------
Program Area: Compliance
          793

-------
                                                    Compliance Assistance and Centers
                                                              Program Area: Compliance
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY2010
Actuals
$23,628.3
$756.8
$263.7
$24,648.8
165.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
($26,688.0)
-173.7
Program Project Description:

The Compliance Assistance and Centers program helps the regulated community comply with
environmental laws by providing easy access to tools that help them understand the 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), this program provides compliance  assistance tools, technical assistance,  and training to
promote and enforce UST systems compliance and cleanups.1

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency merged the  Compliance Assistance and Centers and Compliance
Incentives program activities into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs
to more  fully integrate  assistance  into its  enforcement and compliance  assurance efforts.
Therefore, the FY 2012 Compliance and Assistance and Centers program's activities  and
performance plan are incorporated into the Civil Enforcement program.

Performance Targets:

The performance measures previously supported by this program  project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement program under EPM, where these resources have been realigned.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$797.07 -4.8 FTE) This reduction in resources reflects the Agency's efforts to realign
       the enforcement program by integrating the Compliance  Assistance program into the
 For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/index.htm
                                         794

-------
      Civil Enforcement program. The reduced resources include $764.0 associated payroll for
      4.8 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; RCRA.
                                       795

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                    796

-------
                                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance SuperrUnd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2010
Actuals
$98,258.9
$4,054.0
$152.3
$24.0
$16,498.3
$118,987.5
481.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$88,576.0
$4,108.0
$0.0
$0.0
$15,352.0
$108,036.0
481.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($8,834.0)
($277.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($1,735.0)
($11,032.0)
-21.6
Program Project Description:

The Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) Program supports the development,
collection, management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and
ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at
the national, program,  and regional levels.  IT/DM provides a secure, reliable, and capable
information  infrastructure based  on  a sound  enterprise architecture which includes  data
standardization, integration, and public access.  IT/DM manages the Agency's Quality System
ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines. IT/DM also
supports regional  information  technology infrastructure, administrative  and environmental
programs, and telecommunications.

The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities. For descriptive
purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access;
geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/information management (IT/EVI) policy and
planning; electronic  records and  content  management;  internet  operations and  maintenance
(IOME); information reliability and privacy; and IT/EVI  infrastructure.  The activities funded
under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) appropriation  are IT/EVI infrastructure
and Internet Operations and Maintenance (IOME).
                                          797

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the work previously supported by LUST appropriation will be continued under
Environmental  Program and Management appropriation.   This realignment provides  more
efficient accounting of program expenditures.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports multiple strategic objectives.   Currently,  there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (-$162.0) This change eliminates the use of LUST appropriation and shifts resources to
      Environmental Program Management appropriation to provide more efficient accounting
      of this program funding. There will be no change in the work being performed.

Statutory Authority:

FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD; DAA; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA;
SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA;
CSA; PR; EFOIA.
                                        798

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   799

-------
                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2010
Actuals
$310,238.8
$72,841.7
$29,896.7
$871.9
$489.4
$76,052.0
$490,390.5
410.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY2012
Pres Budget
$324,965.0
$76,521.0
$33,931.0
$916.0
$536.0
$81,431.0
$518,300.0
408.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$9,727.0
$3,603.0
$5,000.0
$12.0
$31.0
$2,949.0
$21,322.0
-2.6
Program Project Description:

The Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program provides activities and support services in
many centralized administrative  areas at EPA.  Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
appropriation for this program support a full range of ongoing facilities management services
including rental payments for laboratory and office facilities, health and safety, environmental
compliance, occupational  health,  medical monitoring, fitness, wellness, safety, environmental
management functions, facilities maintenance and operations, security, space planning, shipping
and  receiving,  property  management,  printing and  reproduction, mail  management,  and
transportation services. Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for the Agency.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

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. EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by
Executive Order 13ISO2  Federal Workforce Transportation. For  FY 2012, the Agency is
requesting a total of $0.70 million for rent and $0.07 million for transit subsidy in the LUST
appropriation.
• Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo 13150.html
                                          800

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation.  These measures can also be found in
the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$17.0) This reflects an increase in transit subsidy costs.

   •   (-$1.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
       work to redesign  processes and streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (-$4.0) This  decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the  Agency's  travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

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).
                                           801

-------
                                                              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 Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY2010
Actuals
$33,272.6
$172.4
$23,820.8
$57,265.8
333.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$32,404.0
$165.0
$24,684.0
$57,253.0
362.9
FY2012
Pres Budget
$34,119.0
$163.0
$24,097.0
$58,379.0
348.9
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$1,715.0
($2.0)
($587.0)
$1,126.0
-14.0
Program Project Description:

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) resources in the Acquisition Management program
support contract and acquisition management  activities  at headquarters, Regional  offices,
Research Triangle Park, and Cincinnati offices.  Sound contract management fosters efficiency
and effectiveness assisting all  of EPA's programs.  EPA focuses on maintaining a high level of
integrity in the management of its LUST-related procurement activities.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Agency will continue to refine electronic government capabilities and enhance
the education of its contract workforce. In addition, LUST resources will continue to support the
full range of acquisition management activities for the underground tanks programs.

In FY 2012,  acquisition management  resources will  enable EPA to train  and develop its
acquisition workforce, and to strengthen its  contractor training program—two efforts that mirror
the President's guidelines for civilian  agencies in the Acquisition Workforce Development
Strategic Plan for FY 2010-2014.  In addition,  resources will support the recruitment, retention,
and hiring of additional  members of the acquisition workforce as defined  by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401  et seq.).  Acquisition management
will also address information technology needs  that support management and the acquisition
workforce.
                                          802

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the performance measure in the Acquisition Management
Program Project under the EPM appropriation.   This measure can  also be  found in the
Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$2.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign processes  and streamline  activities  in  both  administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

EPA's Environmental  Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FAR;  contract law.  Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.)
                                          803

-------
                                              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 Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY2010
Actuals
$86,883.5
$1,312.0
$28,192.2
$116,387.7
538.7
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$82,834.0
$1,115.0
$27,490.0
$111,439.0
547.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$77,548.0
$512.0
$22,252.0
$100,312.0
535.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($5,286.0)
($603.0)
($5,238.0)
($11,127.0)
-12.0
Program Project Description:

EPA's financial  management community maintains a strong partnership with the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program.  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.  This includes developing, managing, and supporting a goals-based
management system consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) for
the Agency that involves strategic planning and accountability for environmental, fiscal, and
managerial results; providing policy, systems, training, reports, and oversight essential for the
financial operations of EPA;  managing the Agency-wide Working Capital  Fund;  providing
financial payment  and support  services for EPA through three finance centers,  as well  as
specialized fiscal and accounting services for many EPA programs; and managing the  Agency's
annual budget process.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The  Agency will continue to ensure sound financial and budgetary management of the LUST
program 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 a better understanding of program impacts as well as leverage points to increase effectiveness.

Since the implementation of the Improper Payment Act of 2002, EPA has reviewed,  sampled,
and  monitored its payments to protect against erroneous payments.  The Agency consistently
exceeds the government-wide performance goal of 2.5 percent with an average error rate of less
                                         804

-------
than 1 percent across all categories (grants, contracts, commodities, and travel/purchase card).
Payments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were also included in the
sample. In FY 2012, EPA will continue these activities to reduce even further the amount of
improper payments.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this program  supports multiple strategic  objectives.  Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+90.0) This change reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-$6407-5.0 FTE) This reflects  a reduction  in LUST finance activities. The  reduced
       resources include 5.0 FTE and associated payroll of $640.0.

    •   (-0.9 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$53.0) This change reduces non-payroll LUST resources to better align resources with
       historical utilization and Agency priorities.

Statutory Authority:

Annual Appropriations Act; CCA;  Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Energy Policy
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Sections 9001 - 9011; 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.
                                         805

-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                       806

-------
                                                                             LUST / UST
                                   Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                  Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$24,037.0
132.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$12,833.9
$17,901.7
$12,949.8
$4,951.9
$30,735.6
120.5
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$12,424.0
$11,613.0
$11,613.0
$0.0
$24,037.0
132.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$12,866.0
$11,982.0
$11,982.0
$0.0
$24,848.0
127.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$442.0
$369.0
$369.0
$0.0
$811.0
-5.0
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. Under this program, EPA provides oversight and financial assistance for
states,  tribes,  and non-profit organizations.   Activities in  support  of this  mission include
providing technical information, forums for information exchange, and training opportunities to
encourage program development and/or implementation.

EPA works with state and tribal UST programs to clean up LUST sites, promote innovative and
environmentally friendly approaches in corrective action in order to enhance and streamline the
remediation process, and measure and evaluate national program progress and performance.  In
addition, the Energy Policy Act3 (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 for these activities, including
providing tribes with financial assistance for cleanups.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

As of September  2010,  81  percent (or  401,874) of all reported leaks have been addressed,
leaving a remainder of 93,123 old leaks that have not yet been cleaned up.4 In FY 2012, EPA
will continue to work with the states and tribes  to complete LUST cleanups in an effort to reduce
the remaining backlog.
3 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).
4  Refer to Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures End Of Fiscal Year 2010 - As Of September 30, 2010, dated
 November 2010; http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca 10 34.pdf
                                           807

-------
In FY 2012, EPA will continue to strive for improved engagement of local communities with
stakeholder input in enhancing  state  and  tribal  public involvement of policies and processes.
EPA will continue to help states and tribes improve LUST cleanup performance through actions
such  as  analyzing states' backlog characterization  reports and states'  financial  assurances
mechanisms,  and implementing strategies to reduce the backlog of open releases.  EPA will
continue to work with states to better characterize sites still requiring  remediation and provide
guidance and technical support regarding cleanup approaches and technologies.  EPA also will
continue its efforts to monitor the soundness  of financial  mechanisms serving as financial
assurance for LUST  sites,  including insurance and  state cleanup funds, which serve as a
significant source of funding for addressing LUST cleanups.  EPA  will continue to explore the
opportunities for financial mechanisms to improve cleanup performance.

The EPAct requirement to develop a  strategy5 for implementing the program in Indian country
has enhanced EPA's  efforts and provided renewed focus to reduce the  cleanup  backlog and
prevent future releases in Indian country.  To address leaking USTs in Indian country and protect
vulnerable populations, 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 chart below provides a historical perspective of the UST cleanup backlog nationwide.

UST National Backlog: FY 1989 - End of FY 2010
                                  UST National Backlog:
                            FY 1989 Thru End Of Year FY 2010

*
o 160,000
|-

•
3

—


•

«
o
a
O

«
= n














^












0>
^
'\~











"*>
<>>•














„<**
N,t-














.&
^















X
















J&
*K















AA
s^"















JP
•JP'















.£
•S'















d£
^
















^
&















.0,
^
















^
&'















rftl
n*

















^
















9?
N









         1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
                                                Years
5 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/epact Q5.htm#Final.
                                           808

-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(113) Number of
LUST cleanups
completed that meet
risk-based standards
for human exposure
and groundwater
migration in Indian
Country.
FY 2010
Target



30



FY 2010
Actual



62



FY2011
CR
Target



38



FY 2012
Target



42



Units



Cleanups



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$619.0) This reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

    •   (-4.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization
       rates.

    •   (-$131.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets  certain categories  of spending  for efficiencies and reductions,
       including  advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (-$213.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects  an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

    •   (+$94.0)  This increase provides  additional resources to grants for technical assistance,
       training, and administrative support for the LUST program. These resources may be used
       to address emerging program  issues  and cleanup activities  such as vapor  intrusion
       cleanup, state fund soundness, or the implementation of Green Remediation practices.
Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 8001(a) and Sections 9001-9014.
6901 et seq. -
                                           809

-------
                                                             LUST Cooperative Agreements
                                     Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                                                         Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                                   Objective(s): Restore Land

                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$0.0
$63,570.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$55,963.6
$65,214.5
($9,250.9)
$55,963.6
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$63,570.0
$63,570.0
$0.0
$63,570.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$63,192.0
$63,192.0
$0.0
$63,192.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($378.0)
($378.0)
$0.0
($378.0)
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. To date, 401,874 reported leaks have been addressed, leaving a
backlog of 93,123 old leaks that have not yet been cleaned up.6

States are the primary implementing agencies. 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 of an emergency and 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.7

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.  Forty states8 have separate UST cleanup funds
that pay for most LUST cleanups.  Collectively, states  raise and spend  $600  to $700 million
annually to support their state  fund that, depending upon  the state, fund cleanups for LUST sites
and cleanups for other non-federally regulated tank sites (e.g., aboveground  storage tank sites,
home heating oil tank sites).9
6 Refer to Semi-Annual Report Of UST Performance Measures End of Fiscal Year 2010 -As Of September 30, 2010, dated
 November 2010; http://epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca 10  34.pdf. For additional information, refer to the following site:
 http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm.
7 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/ltffacts.htm
8 There are 36 state funds that accept new releases and an additional 7 that have "sunset," meaning that they stopped accepting
 claims. Because the span of these "sunset" funds varies, the program has characterized this number as approximately 40 states.
9 ASTSWMO State Fund Survey 2010 http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/tanks/2010_State_Funds_Survey/Summary-
2010.pdf
                                             810

-------
The LUST program received funding in the FY 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). All of these funds were obligated; however, $9.2 million was returned by one state and
subsequently rescinded  by Congress.  The ARRA funds  will continue to be outlayed in FY
2012.    Additional   details   can   be   found   at   http://www.epa. gov/recovery/   and
http://www.recovery.gov/.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work with the states to complete LUST cleanups in an effort to
reduce the remaining backlog.  EPA's LUST cleanup program will focus on increasing the
efficiency of LUST  cleanups  nationwide.  EPA  and its  state partners will continue to make
progress in cleaning up petroleum leaks by initiating and completing cleanups, and reducing the
backlog of sites not yet  cleaned up. At the FY 2012 request level,  the Agency will continue to
provide not less than 80  percent of LUST cleanup appropriated funds to states to carry out
specific purposes.10   EPA  will distribute the LUST funding  to states under  a previously
established allocation process for the cleanup activities.

In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency,  and effectiveness of EPA's  cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multi-year integrated cleanup initiative (ICI)  in FY 2010 to better
utilize  EPA's assessment  and  cleanup authorities, in an integrated and transparent fashion,  to
address a greater number of contaminated sites,  accelerate cleanups where possible,  and put
those sites back into productive use  while protecting human health and the environment. By
utilizing the relevant tools available in  each of the cleanup programs, including underground
storage tanks, EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual
sites.

EPA has developed an Implementation Plan to further describe the goal and objectives of the ICI
and to  identify ongoing or new actions the Agency will advance with our partners during the
upcoming years. In addition, the Agency is looking for ways to address the backlog of leaking
underground storage tank sites through better site characterization efforts, remedy selection
review, other technical assistance and more generally, partnering with state programs to  support
management, oversight and enforcement activities at unaddressed LUST sites. Collectively, the
actions establish a framework of activities, milestone dates,  and deliverables.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(112) Number of
LUST cleanups
completed that meet
risk-based standards
for human exposure
and groundwater

FY 2010
Target


12,250



FY 2010
Actual


11,591


FY2011
CR
Target


12,250



FY 2012
Target


12,400



Units


Cleanups


10 As defined in 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).
                                           811

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
migration.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units

To improve the LUST program, EPA created a long-term performance measure that focuses on
environmental outcomes to increase the number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration.  In FY 2012, the target for this measure is 12,400
cleanups, an increase of 150 over our FY 2011 target of 12,250.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$378.0) This change reflects a reduction of funds realigned in FY 2010. This change
       will not impact performance.

Statutory Authority:

SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(Subtitle I), Section 9003(h); Section 9004(f); Section 8001(a)(l); Section 9003(h)(7)  of the
SWDA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
                                         812

-------
                                                                        LUST Prevention
                                   Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                                Objective(s): Preserve Land

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$35,030.1
$35,030.1
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$34,430.0
$34,430.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

Preventing petroleum releases into the environment has been one of the primary goals of the
Leaking  Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program since  its inception. EPA  and its state
partners have made major progress in reducing the number of new releases, but thousands of new
leaks are  still discovered  each  year.  The lack  of proper operation  and maintenance of
underground storage tank (UST) systems is a main cause of these new releases. EPA continues
to work  with  the  states, tribes,  and other partners to advance prevention efforts and  quickly
detect releases when they occur.

In recent years, these  efforts have  been enhanced by  the  release prevention  requirements
mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).  The LUST Prevention program provides
assistance to states to meet their responsibilities under Title XV, Subtitle B of EPAct  and for
tribes to  implement the LUST Prevention program,  as highlighted in EPA's "Strategy For An
EPA/Tribal Partnership To Implement Section 1529 Of the Energy Policy Act Of 2005." u As of
September 30, 2010, there were approximately 597,000 federally-regulated  active USTs at
approximately 215,000  sites across the country.  The LUST Prevention program  assists states
with inspections and other release prevention and compliance  assurance activities for federally-
regulated underground  storage tank systems, as  well as for  enforcement activities related to
release prevention.  For tribes, the LUST Prevention program assists with all aspects of the tribal
programs, e.g., inspection capacity.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA  will continue to make grants or cooperative agreements to states  and tribes,
and/or intertribal consortia for activities authorized by the EPAct. 2 Major activities will include
inspections, enforcement,  development  of leak prevention  regulations,  and other program
infrastructure  areas.   Specifically, these major activities include inspecting UST facilities to
complete the three-year inspection requirement, and  assisting  states in adopting measures (e.g.,
1' See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/Tribal%20Strategy_080706r.pdf.
12 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).
                                           813

-------
delivery prohibition, secondary containment, operator training, etc.), as required by EPAct and
EPA's grant  guidelines.  These activities are  geared toward bringing all  UST systems into
compliance with release detection and release prevention requirements and minimizing future
releases.

For tribes, the LUST Prevention program will assist with all aspects of the tribal programs (e.g.,
developing inspection capacity).  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 educating owners and  operators in Indian Country about UST
requirements.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type





Outcome





Measure
(ST6) Increase the
percentage of UST
facilities that are in
significant operational
compliance (SOC)
with both release
detection and release
prevention
requirements by 0.5%
over the previous year's
target.
FY 2010
Target





65.5





FY 2010
Actual





68.6





FY2011
CR
Target





66





FY 2012
Target





66.5





Units





Percent





Work under this program also supports performance results in Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks and the performance measures can be found in the Performance Four Year Array
Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   No change in program funding.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act,  as amended, 42 U.S.C.  6901  et seq.  - Sections  9001-9011 and
Energy Policy Act of 2005 42 USC 15801 - Section 1529.
                                          814

-------
Program Area: Research Land Protection
                 815

-------
                                             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
Inland Oil Spills
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345. 0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY2010
Actuals
$14,687.7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,334.0
$37,993.9
137.6
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$14,111.0
$345. 0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($14,111.0)
($345.0)
($639.0)
($21,191.0)
($36, 286.0)
-154.7
Program Project Description:

Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) research focuses on the assessment and cleanup of
leaks  at fueling stations, and especially identifying the environmental impacts of existing and
new biofuels coming into the marketplace.   EPA's Land  Research Program provides the
scientific foundation for the  Agency's  actions to protect America's land and  groundwater
resources impacted by the nation's over 600,000 underground  storage tanks for fuels.   The
purpose of the Land Protection LUST research program is the prevention and control of pollution
at LUST sites, and is  of high importance to state environmental programs.  Specific activities
include the  development of source term and transport modeling modules for use by state project
managers and the development of multiple remediation approaches applicable to spilled fuels,
with or without oxygenates.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions to high-priority environmental problems for the
past 40 years. As science has  advanced, EPA is working towards an  approach that allows the
Agency to  address the  increasing complexity of 21st century  environmental  challenges.
Communities are increasingly  challenged to sustain the  well-being of their residents and the
benefits of nature upon which they depend.  Changing demographics; urbanization; competition
for  food, materials, and energy in  a global economy; growing waste streams; changing climate;
tighter budgets; and socioeconomic inequities  have added to the issues that must  be faced..
Instead, a more systems-oriented and synergistic approach  is needed.

To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated  research approach.  This approach will  look at problems from a
                                          816

-------
systems perspective to develop  a  deeper understanding of our environmental  challenges and
inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To  implement  this new approach, EPA is integrating the Land Protection and Restoration
Research Program with the Fellowships, Human Health  and Ecosystems, Sustainability, and
Pesticides and  Toxics Research Programs into the Sustainable and  Healthy Communities
Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPA's new Strategic Plan structure
and  capitalizes on  existing capabilities  to  accomplish EPA's mission. Research  to  address
targeted challenges associated with leaking underground storage tanks and to provide technical
support will continue, with an emphasized focus on sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (+$112.0) This increase reflects a recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•   (-0.3 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of total FTEs to better reflect utilization rates.

•   (-$3.0)  This reflects a reduction as part of the  Administrative Efficiency  Initiative.   This
    initiative targets certain  categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
    advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and  supplies.   EPA will continue its
    work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
    areas to achieve these savings.

•   (-$454.0 / -1.6  FTE)   This reflects  a transfer of dollar  and FTE resources to the new
    Sustainable  and Healthy Communities Research Program.  This includes a transfer of $277.0
    in associated payroll.  This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems research, as
    well as portions of Land; Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides and Toxics research
    programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns Agency priorities.   This effort will
    improve the Agency's ability to deliver  science more  effectively  and efficiently, with
    catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the overall goal.

Statutory Authority:

HSWA; RCRA, Subtitle I, LUST Trust Fund;  EPA;  SOW A, Section 1442. 42 U.S.C. 300J-1;
SWDA, Section 8001, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6901; SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 - Section 1002, 42
U.S.C.   6905    -   Section   1006;    SWDA,    Section   8001.      42   U.S.C.    6981.
                                           817

-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                      818

-------
                                        Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
                                         Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$188,095.0
$345. 0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$210,343.0
647.0
FY2010
Actuals
$183,002.7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,525.3
$206,500.2
625.3
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$186,095.0
$345. 0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$208,343.0
647.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$171,026.0
$454.0
$614.0
$17,706.0
$189,800.0
621.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($17,069.0)
$109.0
($25.0)
($3,558.0)
($20,543.0)
-25.3
Program Project Description:

Research in the  Sustainable  and Healthy Communities  (SHC)  Program under the  Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) appropriation focuses on the assessment and cleanup of
leaks at fueling stations, and especially on identifying the environmental impacts of existing and
new biofuels coming into the  marketplace (including unintended consequences).  EPA research
provides  the scientific foundation for the  Agency's  actions to  protect America's  land  and
groundwater resources that could be impacted by the nation's over 600 thousand underground
storage tanks for fuels. The purpose of the LUST component of EPA research is the prevention
and control of pollution at LUST  sites, and  is of  high importance to state environmental
programs.

In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its planning and delivery of science  for the SHC Program by
implementing an integrated research approach that looks at  problems from a systems perspective.
This approach will create synergy and yield benefits beyond those possible from approaches that
are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas.

The new integrated  research approach will help develop sustainable  solutions  by  adding a
transformative component  to EPA's existing research portfolio. This research will leverage the
diverse  capabilities  of in-house  scientists  and engineers  and  bridge traditional  scientific
disciplines.  In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as
federal,  state and  local government agencies,  non-governmental organizations,  industry,  and
communities affected by environmental problems.  This type of integrated research is expected
to be a more efficient path to developing long-term environmentally sustainable solutions.
All or portions of the following Research Programs will be integrated into the SHC Research
Program:
      Human Health Research
      Ecosystems Services Research
                                          819

-------
       Land Protection and Preservation Research
       Pesticides and Toxics Research
       Sustainability Research
       Fellowships Research

Research that will be conducted under the new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research
Program LUST appropriation will be used by federal, state and local officials to:

   •   Support remediating contaminated land and groundwater after a leak occurs;
   •   Restore previously contaminated land and groundwater so that it can become a functional
       part of a sustainable community without adversely affecting human health.

Research on leaking underground storage tanks focuses on modeling and remediation of spilled
fuels. This research will include both current types of fuel  and  alternative fuels as they are
adopted.  Studies are now extending to fuel blends with higher ethanol content to address the
needs of the Office of Underground  Storage Tanks (OUST) funded jointly with the Office of
Research and Development through a Cooperative Agreement.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain the well-being of their residents and the
benefits of nature upon which they depend. Leaking underground storage tanks remain a risk to
the health and ecosystems of many communities.   In  FY  2012,  EPA's  research on leaking
underground storage tanks will extend to fuel blends with higher ethanol content to address the
needs of  OUST as well as  community stakeholders.   Increased ethanol content  influences
biodegradation of spilled fuel and can elongate plumes,  yielding  a higher  potential for
contaminants to impact drinking water supplies and to intrude into breathing air in buildings. The
effects of ethanol on pipes, tanks, pumps, and other distribution system hardware are  a concern,
owing to the corrosive nature of ethanol. OUST will support a study in FY 2011 and into FY
2012  to evaluate how tank gauges  perform  in the presence of  ethanol fuel blends.   SHC
researchers will communicate with partners in OUST to ensure integration of  results in future
research, and in  communication to community stakeholders.  In FY 2012, the SHC Research
Program will continue working with partners from across EPA, in particular the  Solid  Waste and
Emergency Response Program and the Ground Water and Drinking Water Programs, as well as
applicable external stakeholders.

Performance Targets:

 Performance results for this program are discussed in the S&T:  Sustainable  and Healthy
Communities Research Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

The following  policy changes  are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 budget structure to
the 2010 enacted budget and are included in the transfer from the source programs following this
section:
                                          820

-------
    •   (-$3.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative. This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory  contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies. EPA will continue its
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

    •   (+$112.0 /  -.3 FTE)  This increase  represents the  net  effect of all  other payroll and
       technical adjustments including Information  Technology reductions,  Small Business
       Renovation  Research  realignments  and administrative  and  programmatic  support
       realignments and reductions. It includes an increase of $112.0 for FTE changes as well
       as a recalculation of base costs for existing FTE in this program.  For more information
       on these  adjustments, refer to the programs integrating into the Sustainable and Healthy
       Communities Research Program.

Transfer from source program:

    •   (+$454.0 / +1.6 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources from the Land
       Protection and Restoration Research  Program  into the new,  integrated Sustainable and
       Healthy Communities Program,  including $277.0 in associated  payroll.   This  transfer
       includes the net effect of all adjustments.  For additional details on this net effect, please
       refer to the Research: Land Protection and Restoration program narrative.

Statutory Authority:

HSWA; RCRA Subtitle I; LUST; Energy Policy  Act of 2005; SDWA Section 1442. 42 U.S.C.
300J-1;  SWDA Section 8001, as amended; RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901; SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6901  -
Section 1002, 42 U.S.C. 6905 - Section 1006; SWDA Section 8001.  42 U.S.C. 6981.
                                           821

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Inland Oil Spill Programs
Resource Summary Table	824
Program Projects in Inland Oil Spill Programs	824
Program Area: Compliance	826
   Compliance Assistance and Centers	827
   Compliance Monitoring	829
Program Area: Enforcement	831
   Civil Enforcement	832
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security	834
   IT / Data Management	835
Program Area: Oil	837
   Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response	838
Program Area: Operations and Administration	843
   Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	844
Program Area: Land Protection	846
   Research: Land Protection and Restoration	847
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities	850
   Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities	851
                                       822

-------
823

-------
                           Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
                     APPROPRIATION: Inland Oil Spill Programs
                               Resource Summary Table
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)




Inland Oil Spill Programs
Budget Authority
Total Workyears


FY 2010
Enacted

$18,379.0
102.2


FY 2010
Actuals

$16,904.4
89.8

FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$18,379.0
102.2


FY 2012
Pres Budget

$23,662.0
119.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

$5,283.0
16.8
                       Bill Language: Inland Oil Spill Programs

For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental Protection Agency's responsibilities
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $23,662,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill Liability trust
fund, to remain available until expended. Note.—A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account
was not enacted at the time the  budget was prepared; therefore,  this account is operating under
a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the
annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.
                     Program Projects in Inland Oil Spill Programs
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness
and Response
FY 2010
Enacted

$269.0
$0.0
$269.0

$1,998.0

$24.0

$14,944.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$263.7
$0.0
$263.7

$2,082.8

$24.0

$13,494.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$269.0
$0.0
$269.0

$1,998.0

$24.0

$14,944.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget

$0.0
$138.0
$138.0

$2,902.0

$0.0

$19,472.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

($269.0)
$138.0
($131.0)

$904.0

($24.0)

$4,528.0
                                         824

-------
Program Project
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure
and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable
and Healthy Communities
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2010
Enacted


$438.0
$67.0
$505.0
$505.0

$639.0
$639.0
$18,379.0
FY 2010
Actuals


$438.0
$51.4
$489.4
$489.4

$549.7
$549.7
$16,904.4
FY 2011
Annualized
CR


$438.0
$67.0
$505.0
$505.0

$639.0
$639.0
$18,379.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget


$438.0
$98.0
$536.0
$536.0

$614.0
$614.0
$23,662.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted


$0.0
$31.0
$31.0
$31.0

($25.0)
($25.0)
$5,283.0
825

-------
Program Area: Compliance
          826

-------
                                                    Compliance Assistance and Centers
                                                             Program Area: Compliance
                                                    Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY 2010
Actuals
$23,628.3
$756.8
$263.7
$24,648.8
165.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$25,622.0
$797.0
$269.0
$26,688.0
173.7
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($25,622.0)
($797.0)
($269.0)
($26,688.0)
-173.7
Program Project Description:

This portion  of the Compliance Assistance program is designed to prevent oil spills using
compliance 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  the Agency merged the Compliance Assistance  and  Centers  and Compliance
Incentives program activities into the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs
to more fully integrate compliance assistance into enforcement and assurance efforts. Therefore,
the FY 2012 Compliance and Assistance and  Centers programs are incorporated  into the Civil
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs.

Performance Targets:

The performance measures previously supported by this program project are now addressed in
the Civil Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring programs under EPM, where these resources
have been realigned.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (-$269.07  -1.8  FTE)  This reduction in resources reflects the Agency's efforts to realign
       the enforcement program by eliminating the Compliance Assistance program and moving
       the  activities  and resources  to  the  Civil  Enforcement and  Compliance Monitoring
       programs. The reduced resources include $222.0 associated payroll for 1.8 FTE.
                                         827

-------
Statutory Authority:

OP A;  CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA;  SOW A; Executive Order  12241;
Executive Order 12656.
                                     828

-------
                                                                Compliance Monitoring
                                                              Program Area: Compliance
                                                     Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY 2010
Actuals
$97,937.7
$0.0
$1,181.8
$99,119.5
593.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$99,400.0
$0.0
$1,216.0
$100,616.0
612.3
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$119,648.0
$138.0
$1,222.0
$121,008.0
617.6
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$20,248.0
$138.0
$6.0
$20,392.0
5.3
Program Project Description:

EPA's Compliance Monitoring 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 Monitoring program is  designed to prevent oil spills.   The
program uses compliance and civil enforcement tools  and strategies and to  prepare for and
respond to any oil spill affecting the inland waters of the United States.

FY 2012 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  2012 to provide compliance assistance to
regulated entities.  The program will assist them in understanding their legal requirements under
the CWA and provide them with cost effective compliance strategies to help prevent oil spills.

There is currently a universe of 640,000 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
regulated facilities under EPA's purview, including a subset of roughly 4,300 facilities that are
subject to Facility Response Plan (FRP) requirements.  EPA will ensure that the management
and oversight of the enforcement and compliance program is enhanced by the integration of
information from  the FRP  and  SPCC data  systems with EPA's integrated  compliance
information system (ICIS).   This integration will provide EPA the opportunity to  effectively
analyze enforcement  and  compliance resources on areas  of high  risk,  and increase the
transparency of this enforcement and compliance data to the public.

Work under this program project supports the Agency's Priority Goal, addressing water quality
(specified in full in Appendix A).
                                          829

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results  in the Compliance Monitoring
program project in the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation and can
be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$138.0/ +0.9  FTE) This change reflects the Agency's efforts to streamline and
       increase the efficiency of the compliance and enforcement program  by consolidating
       resources under Oil appropriation  for the Compliance Assistance  and  Compliance
       Incentives  programs with  the  Civil  Enforcement  and  Compliance  Monitoring
       programs. The redirected resources  include $131.0 associated payroll  for 0.9 FTE.

Statutory Authority:

OP A; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA;  DREAA; SOW A;  Executive  Order  12241;
Executive Order 12656.
                                        830

-------
Program Area: Enforcement
           831

-------
                                                                       Civil Enforcement
                                                               Program Area: Enforcement
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY 2010
Actuals
$145,896.6
$0.0
$2,082.8
$147,979.4
980.8
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$146,636.0
$0.0
$1,998.0
$148,634.0
988.5
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$191,404.0
$832.0
$2,902.0
$195,138.0
1,219.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$44,768.0
$832.0
$904.0
$46,504.0
230.5
Program Project Description:

This portion of the  Civil Enforcement program  is designed to prevent oil  spills using civil
enforcement and compliance assistance approaches, as well as to prepare for and respond to any
oil spills affecting the inland waters of the United States. 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  refer civil judicial  actions to the
Department of Justice, assess civil penalties for violations of those orders or for spills into the
environment, provide compliance assistance to regulated entities to assist them in understanding
their legal requirements under the Clean Water Act, and assist in the recovery of cleanup costs
expended by the government.  The program provides support for  field investigations and
inspections  of  spills,  as well  as  Spill  Prevention,  Control and  Countermeasure (SPCC)
compliance assistance.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the Civil Enforcement program will continue efforts to ensure compliance.  These
efforts are  particularly critical given the number of SPCC regulated  facilities (approximately
640,000  facilities)  and  the  comparatively  modest  number of  inspection and enforcement
personnel.  The Agency's efforts will be focused on high-risk facilities with the greatest potential
to impact public health and the environment.  Many of these facilities are offshore or over water,
which  requires  a large  investment  of  enforcement resources  to follow  up  on violations
discovered  during complex inspections or enforcement  investigations.   Recently implemented
SPCC regulatory changes will be a  focus.  Extramural resources cover costs associated with
training and administrative support. Travel costs are requested for facility oversight and meeting
coordination with other regulatory agencies  (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard/Fish & Wildlife Service).
Additionally, EPA  will  address violations related  to  facility response  plans  and response
planning.
                                           832

-------
EPA's response to the Deepwater Horizon oil  spill will continue in FY 2012 as we provide
primary support for the U.S. Department of Justice's civil action against BP,  Anadarko, and
others  responsible for the Deepwater Horizon  incident.  The  Department of Justice filed its
complaint on behalf of EPA, the Coast Guard and other federal plaintiffs in December 2010, and
EPA expects to actively participate in this litigation, discovery and response to court orders
throughout FY 2012.

Work under this program project supports the Agency's Priority Goal, addressing water quality.
A list of the Agency's Priority Goals can be found in Appendix A.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports  the  performance measures  in the Civil Enforcement
program project under EPM. These measures can also be found in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$430.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

    •   (+$131.07 +0.9 FTE) This change  reflects the Agency's efforts to streamline and increase
       the  efficiency  of the  compliance and enforcement  program by  consolidating the
       Compliance Assistance  program with the  Civil  Enforcement program.  The additional
       resources include $91.0 associated payroll for 0.9 FTE.

    •   (+$343.0/ +0.8 FTE)  Additional resources, which include $119.0 in associated payroll,
       will be used for Deepwater  Horizon litigation support,  discovery  management, and the
       continuing civil  investigation.  This  litigation  support is  not being provided by the
       Department of Justice.

Statutory Authority:

OP A; CWA; CERCLA; NEPA; Pollution  Prosecution Act.
                                          833

-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
                    834

-------
                                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$98,258.9
$4,054.0
$152.3
$24.0
$16,498.3
$118,987.5
481.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$97,410.0
$4,385.0
$162.0
$24.0
$17,087.0
$119,068.0
503.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$88,576.0
$4,108.0
$0.0
$0.0
$15,352.0
$108,036.0
481.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($8,834.0)
($277.0)
($162.0)
($24.0)
($1,735.0)
($11,032.0)
-21.6
Program Project Description:

The  Information Technology/Data Management (IT/DM) Program  supports the development,
collection, management, and analysis of environmental  data (to include both point source and
ambient data) to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at
the national, program,  and regional levels.  IT/DM  provides a secure,  reliable, and capable
information  infrastructure based  on  a sound enterprise architecture  which includes data
standardization, integration, and public  access.  IT/DM  manages the Agency's Quality System
ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines. IT/DM also
supports regional  information  technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental
programs, and telecommunications.

The work performed under IT/DM encompasses more than 30 distinct activities.  For descriptive
purposes they can be categorized into the following major functional areas: information access;
geospatial information and analysis; Envirofacts; IT/information management (IT/EVI) policy and
planning;  electronic records  and  content  management; internet  operations  and maintenance
(IOME); information reliability and privacy; and  IT/EVI infrastructure.   The activity partially
funded under the Inland Oil Spill Response Programs (Oil) appropriation is Internet Operations
and Maintenance (IOME).
                                          835

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the  work previously supported by this appropriation will be  continued under
Environmental Program and Management.  This realignment provides more efficient accounting
of program expenditures.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this  program supports  multiple strategic  objectives.  Currently, there are  no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY  2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$24.0) This change  eliminates  the use of Oil  appropriation and shifts resources to
       Environmental Program Management appropriation to provide more efficient accounting
       of this program funding. There will be no change in the work being performed.

Statutory Authority:

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),  42 U.S.C. 553 et seq.  and Government Information
Security Act (GISRA),  40 U.S.C. 1401  et  seq. - Sections 3531,  3532,  3533, 3534, 3535 and
3536 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation  and Liability Act (CERCLA),
42 U.S.C. 9606 et seq. - Sections 101-128,  301-312 and 401-405  and  Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. -  Sections 102,  103,  104 and  108 and Clean Water Act
(CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1314 et seq. - Sections 101, 102,  103,  104, 105, 107, and 109 and Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2611 et seq. - Sections  201, 301 and 401 and Federal
Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),  7 U.S.C. 36 et seq. - Sections  136a - 136y
and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. - Sections 102, 210, 301 and 501
and Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) Amendments,  42 U.S.C.  300 et seq. - Sections 1400,
1401, 1411, 1421, 1431, 1441,  1454 and 1461 and Federal Food, Drug and  Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346 et seq. and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. - Sections  322, 324, 325 and 328 and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6962 et seq. - Sections 1001, 2001, 3001 and 3005 and
Government Performance and Results Act  (GPRA), 39  U.S.C. 2803 et seq. - Sections 1115,
1116, 1117, 1118 and 1119 and Government Management Reform Act (GMRA),  31 U.S.C. 501
et seq. - Sections 101, 201, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404  and 405 and Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), 40
U.S.C. 1401 et seq. -  Sections  5001,  5201, 5301,  5401, 5502, 5601 and 5701and Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et  seq. - Sections 104, 105,  106, 107, 108,  109, 110, 111,
112 and 113  and  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. and Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 802 et seq.  - Sections 801, 811, 821, 841, 871, 955 and 961
and Electronic Freedom of Information Act (EFOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. - Sections 552(a)(2),
552 (a)(3), 552 (a)(4) and 552(a)(6).
                                         836

-------
Program Area: Oil
       837

-------
                                         Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
                                                                        Program Area: Oil
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                                Objective(s): Restore Land

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



Inland Oil Spill Programs
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY 2010
Enacted
$14,944.0
$14,944.0
84.0

FY 2010
Actuals
$13,494.8
$13,494.8
154.2

FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$14,944.0
$14,944.0
84.0

FY 2012
Pres Budget
$19,472.0
$19,472.0
100.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$4,528.0
$4,528.0
16.0
Program Project Description:

The  Oil  Spill program  protects U.S. waters by preventing, preparing for, responding to and
monitoring  oil spills.   EPA  conducts oil  spill prevention,  preparedness,  and enforcement
activities associated with more than 600 thousand 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) regulation establish
the Oil Spill program regulatory framework, while the National Oil and Hazardous  Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the framework for some of EPA's preparedness
responsibilities such  as the  development of  Area  Contingency Plans  (ACPs).   EPA has
responsibility for Subpart  J of the NCP  regulation,  which includes a product schedule that
addresses bioremediation, dispersants, surface washing, surface collection and other  agents that
may be used to remediate  oil  spills. Finally, as dictated by the NCP, 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  30  thousand oil and
hazardous substance releases occur in the  U.S.  every  year, with  a large number 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Recent spills and releases  at oil  facilities have resulted  in human injuries and  deaths,  severe
environmental  damage,  and great financial loss.   The  Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil  spill
disaster resulted in  11  deaths, millions of gallons  of spilled oil,  and untold  environmental
damage.  FY 2012 priorities will continue to address activities and lessons learned resulting from
the DWH oil spill and response. States and communities  often lack the infrastructure to address
these emergencies or to work with oil and chemical facilities before these accidents take place to
prevent them from happening in the first place.
                                           838

-------
Recent events have highlighted areas of EPA's responsibility that merit renewed attention.  EPA
provides a sound and effective response to disasters once they have occurred, but there is  more
that can be done to prevent them.  In FY 2012, EPA proposes to increase oversight/monitoring of
regulated high risk facilities to better implement prevention approaches.

Increase inspections at high risk oil facilities

As part of the Regaining Ground in  Compliance initiative, EPA requests additional funding to
increase the number of inspectors in the Oil Spill program and protect the integrity of the inland
oil storage network. EPA currently estimates the SPCC regulated universe at about 640,000.  Of
these, approximately  11,050 are  offshore  oil  drilling, production and workover facilities and
approximately 4,300  are FRP facilities;  all of which have been  designated as high-risk. This
investment will address the following areas:

       1. Targeted Assessments of High Risk Facilities

Recently, EPA  has begun to focus its  inspection efforts on high  risk oil  facilities, but  the
difficulty in  locating and reaching some of these facilities, as well as the limited  resources
available under  the program have inhibited efforts to increase our inspection rate in  this area.
This initiative will allow the Agency to  focus its inspection program on high risk facilities by
conducting approximately 175 inspections at high risk facilities each year.

       2. Third Party Audits

EPA  will  develop and implement  a third  party  audit  program  for  SPCC  facilities  that
complements  Agency  oversight  and  enforcement activities.  This  program  will include
developing and  implementing guidance for industry and policies, procedures and protocols  for
EPA Headquarters and  Regional offices. Third party audits will  be performed by an  outside
contractor, at sites where conditions  do not pose as serious/critical a threat.  The results of the
audits will be used as a mechanism to target the efforts of the inspection program for "non-high
risk facilities," thereby reaching greater numbers of facilities than under the current inspection
protocol.  High  risk facilities, where  site conditions are more critical, will be inspected by an
EPA led team.

       3. Leveraging 21st Century Technology

In FY 2012,  EPA will develop a national FRP database including identifying requirements  for
electronic submission of FRP s, similar to  the Agency's current system  for Risk  Management
Plan (RMP) submission.  EPA proposes  to leverage technology to complement its strategy  for
inspecting oil facilities.    FRP facilities  are required  to submit their plans  to EPA regional
offices.   The largest oil storage facilities  and refineries must prepare FRPs to identify response
resources and ensure  their availability in the event of a worst case  discharge.  FRPs establish
communication,  address security, identify  an individual with  authority to implement response
actions, and describe training and testing drills at the facility.  EPA also will develop guidance
for FRP inspectors on how to properly utilize this database.
                                           839

-------
Base Program Activities
Under the base program in FY 2012, EPA will continue to conduct inspections, review/approve
FRPs, conduct exercises and work to revise and update  existing regulations  and processes to
better characterize the regulated universe and address risk.  Activities include:

   •   Focus on revisions to Subpart J of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
       Contingency Plan (NCP) that stipulates the criteria for listing and managing the use of
       dispersants and other chemical and biological agents used to mitigate oil spills.  EPA will
       continue to review the current draft Subpart J proposed rule to:

          1.  Incorporate the latest scientific knowledge, including expanding efficacy and
              toxicity testing  for dispersants  and bio-agents, and other oil spill  mitigating
              products that address environmental toxicity;
          2.  Develop new protocols and methods to address bioaccumulation and degradation
              of surfactants and solvents found in many NCP products;
          3.  Add provisions addressing human toxicity concerns; and
          4.  Expand the provisions on how products are delisted.

   •   Working with state, local, tribal, and federal officials in a given geographic location, EPA
       will continue to  strengthen Area Contingency Plans (ACPs) and Regional  Contingency
       Plans via revising guidance, discussion at National Response Team (NRT) and Regional
       Response Teams (RRTs) meetings, and enhanced preparedness  exercises. Comprehensive
       FRP  and  SPCC data will be an important enhancement for these exercises.  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.  Additionally,
       EPA and U.S. Coast Guard are collaborating with the NRT  and  RRTs to review and
       revise ACPs to reflect lessons learned during the DWH response.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(3 3 7) Percent of all
FRP inspected
facilities found to be
non-compliant which
are brought into
compliance.

FY 2010
Target


15



FY 2010
Actual


48


FY2011
CR
Target


30



FY 2012
Target


35



Units


Percent


                                           840

-------

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(3 3 8) Percent of all
SPCC inspected
facilities found to be
non-compliant which
are brought into
compliance.

FY 2010
Target


15



FY 2010
Actual


36


FY2011
CR
Target


30



FY 2012
Target


35



Units


Percent


In FY 2012, EPA will ensure that 35 percent of FRP facilities that are found to be non-compliant
during FY 2010 through FY 2012 will be brought into compliance by the end of the fiscal year.
EPA will emphasize emergency preparedness, particularly through the use of unannounced drills
and exercises, to ensure facilities and responders can effectively  implement response plans.
Similar to the FRP measure mentioned above, EPA will ensure that 35 percent of SPCC facilities
found to be non-compliant during FY 2010 through FY 2012 will be brought into compliance by
the end of the fiscal year.

Under the Regaining Ground in Compliance initiative, the current  long-term oil strategic plan
measure is to bring 60 percent of facilities into compliance by the end of five years (both SPCC
and FRP).   The Agency  expects that the  numerator and denominator will change  with the
increased inspection numbers, but the overall percentage goal/target will remain the same.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$762.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing
       FTE.

   •   (+$4,000.07 +16.0 FTE) These resources, as part  of the Agency's Regaining Ground in
       Compliance initiative, will be used to increase the number  of inspections on high risk
       FRP facilities.  Funding will also be used to develop and implement a third party audit
       program for non-high risk SPCC facilities, in order to improve the efficiency of targeting
       resources and inspectors at these facilities in the future. The additional resources include
       $2,160.0 associated payroll for 16.0 FTE.

   •   (+$1,100.0)  These resources, as part of the Agency's Regaining Ground in Compliance
       initiative, will be used to  develop  a national FRP database and electronic  submission
       system, which will improve the program's inspection efforts.

   •   (-$1,088.0) This change reflects a reduction of funds  received in FY 2010 that led to the
       fmalization of the SPCC rule.

   •   (-$190.0) This reflects a  reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and  reductions,
       including advisory contracts,  travel, general services, printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign processes and streamline  activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.
                                          841

-------
   •   (-$56.0)  This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel
       footprint by promoting green travel and conferencing.

Statutory Authority:

Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by section 4202 of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).  The regulatory framework includes National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) under 40 CFR Part 300. Subpart J is a section of
the NCP which stipulates the criteria for listing and managing the use of dispersants and other
chemical  and biological agents used to  mitigate  oil spills.  The  Oil  Pollution Prevention
regulation (40 CFR Part 112) includes the SPCC and FRP regulatory requirements. The purpose
of the SPCC requirements is to help facilities prevent a discharge of oil into navigable waters or
adjoining  shorelines while the focus of the FRP requirements is to prepare a plan that describes
equipment, personnel and  strategies to respond to  an  oil discharge to  navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines.
                                           842

-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
                   843

-------
                                                 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
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfiind
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY 2010
Actuals
$310,238.8
$72,841.7
$29,896.7
$871.9
$489.4
$76,052.0
$490,390.5
410.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$315,238.0
$72,918.0
$28,931.0
$904.0
$505.0
$78,482.0
$496,978.0
411.1
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$324,965.0
$76,521.0
$33,931.0
$916.0
$536.0
$81,431.0
$518,300.0
408.5
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
$9,727.0
$3,603.0
$5,000.0
$12.0
$31.0
$2,949.0
$21,322.0
-2.6
Program Project Description:

The Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Inland Oil Spill Response appropriation
supports a wide range  of activities and services within many centralized administrative areas
such as facility operations, rental of office and laboratory  space,  security, health and safety,
environmental  compliance, space planning,  property  management,  occupational  health,  and
medical monitoring functions at EPA.  Funding is allocated among the major appropriations for
the Agency.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

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. EPA will continue to provide transit subsidy to eligible
applicants as directed by Executive Order 13150  Federal Workforce Transportation. For FY
2012, the Agency is  requesting a total of $0.44 million for rent and $0.10 million for transit
subsidy in the Oil spill response appropriation.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the  performance measures in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations Program Project under the EPM appropriation.  These measures can also be found in
the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.
                                          844

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$31.0)  This change reflects an increase in transit subsidy costs.

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).
                                          845

-------
Program Area: Land Protection
             846

-------
                                               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
Inland Oil Spills
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY 2010
Actuals
$14,687.7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,334.0
$37,993.9
137.6
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$14,111.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,191.0
$36, 286.0
154.7
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($14,111.0)
($345.0)
($639.0)
($21,191.0)
($36, 286.0)
-154.7
Program Project Description:
The Land Protection and Restoration Program in the Inland Oil Spill Programs appropriation seeks
to protect human and ecosystem health from  the negative impacts of oil spills.  Given recent
events, EPA is committing to a more proactive approach and stepping up our research efforts to
focus on understanding more of the system-wide impacts of oil spills including:


   •   Protocol development/revision for testing oil spill control agents and products for listing
       on the National  Oil and Hazardous  Substances Pollution Contingency  Plan  (NCP)
       Product Schedule and other activities deemed necessary by the Office of Environmental
       Management;
   •   Bioremediation studies for freshly  spilled oil and aged residuals of petroleum based  oil,
       vegetable oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends;
   •   Dispersant performance in deep water and at different concentrations;
   •   Toxicity of dispersants and dispersants mixed with oil and oil residuals; and
   •   Biodegradation of dispersants.

EPA's Land Research Program  provides the scientific  foundation for the Agency's actions to
protect and sustain America's land.  EPA develops and uses its 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. Testing products ensures that they work as
claimed, providing timely access to effective means to reduce damage when an oil spill occurs.

Spill response is a priority for the Agency,  and EPA has been instrumental in providing guidance
for various response technologies, such as the published  bioremediation guidance documents.1 A
 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/publications.htm.
                                           847

-------
key  factor  in  providing guidance  on  spill  response  technologies  is  developing a  firm
understanding of the science behind spill behavior in the environment and the impact of response
technologies  application on  that behavior.   Fundamental  science is  also  essential  to the
development of effective regulations,  and the Agency's Oil  Spill Research Program  has  been
invaluable in providing this  guidance  through  activities such as annual On-Scene Coordinator
training on alternative response technologies.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance  Plan:

EPA research has provided effective solutions  to high-priority  environmental problems for the
past 40 years.  As science has advanced,  EPA  is working towards an approach that allows the
Agency  to  address  the increasing complexity of  21st century  environmental challenges.
Communities are increasingly challenged to sustain  the well-being of their residents and the
benefits of nature upon which they depend. Changing demographics; urbanization; competition
for food, materials, and energy in a global economy; growing waste  streams; changing climate;
and tighter budgets have exacerbated the challenges faced. Local officials are finding that simply
adding  one  more single-purpose, single  media solution  is often environmentally inadequate,
economically inefficient, and socially unacceptable  to  key stakeholders.  Instead, a  more
systems-oriented and synergistic approach is needed.

To address these challenges, in FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its  planning and delivery of science
by implementing an integrated research approach.   This approach will look at problems from a
systems perspective to develop a deeper  understanding of our environmental challenges and
inform sustainable solutions to our strategic goals.

To implement  this  new approach,  EPA  is integrating the  Land Protection  and Restoration
Research Program with the  Fellowships,  Human Health and  Ecosystems, Sustainability, and
Pesticides and  Toxics  Research  Programs into  the Sustainable  and Healthy  Communities
Research Program. This new program is directly aligned with EPA's new Strategic Plan structure
and capitalizes on existing  capabilities to accomplish  EPA's mission. Research to address
targeted oil  spill challenges  and provide  technical support will continue, with an emphasized
focus on sustainable applications and outcomes.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars  in Thousands):

•  (+$64.0) This increase reflects the recalculation of base workforce costs for existing FTE.

•  (+$37.0)  This reflects the net result  of realignments of infrastructure resources such  as
   equipment  purchases and  repairs,  travel,  contracts,   and  general  expenses  that  are
   proportionately allocated across programs to better align with programmatic priorities.

•  (-$15.0) This decrease in travel costs reflects an effort to reduce the Agency's travel footprint
   by promoting green travel and conferencing.
                                          848

-------
•  (-$23.0) This reflects adjustments to the Agency's technology infrastructure modernization
   plan (or Information Technology and telecommunications) resources.  Realignment of these
   resources is based on FTE allocations.

•  (-$88.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
   initiative targets certain categories  of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
   advisory contracts, travel, general services, printing and supplies.   EPA will  continue its
   work to redesign processes and streamline activities in both administrative and programmatic
   areas to achieve these savings.

•  (-$614.0 / -0.9  FTE)  This reflects  a transfer of dollar and  FTE resources  to the  new
   Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This includes a transfer of $123.0
   in associated payroll.  This transfer will integrate Fellowships and Ecosystems  research,  as
   well as portions of Land; Sustainability; Human Health; and Pesticides and Toxics Research
   Programs into a transdisciplinary effort that better aligns with the Administration and Agency
   priorities.  EPA expects this effort will improve the Agency's ability to deliver science more
   effectively and  efficiently,  with catalyzing innovative sustainable solutions as the  overall
   goal.

Statutory Authority:

OPA, 33 U.S.C Chapter 40; CWA, Section 311, 33 U.S.C. § 1321.
                                           849

-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                      850

-------
                                         Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
                                          Program Area: Research: Sustainable Communities
                                                       Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Hazardous Substance Superfimd
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$188,095.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$210,343.0
647.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$183,002.7
$422.5
$549.7
$22,525.3
$206,500.2
625.3
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$186,095.0
$345.0
$639.0
$21,264.0
$208,343.0
647.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$171,026.0
$454.0
$614.0
$17,706.0
$189,800.0
621.7
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($17,069.0)
$109.0
($25.0)
($3,558.0)
($20,543.0)
-25.3
Program Project Description:

The new Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program in the Inland Oil Spill Programs
appropriation seeks to protect human and ecosystem health from the negative impacts of oil spills.
Given recent events, EPA is committing to a more proactive approach and stepping up our research
efforts to focus on understanding more of the system-wide impacts of oil spills including:

   •   Protocol development/revision for testing oil spill control agents and products for listing on
       the National  Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) Product
       Schedule and other activities deemed necessary by Office of Emergency Management
       (OEM);
   •   Bioremediation studies for freshly spilled oil and aged residuals of petroleum based oil,
       vegetable oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends;
   •   Dispersant performance in deep water and at different concentrations;
   •   Toxicity of dispersants and dispersants mixed with oil and oil residuals;
   •   Biodegradation of dispersants.

In FY 2012 EPA will strengthen its  planning and delivery of science for the SHC Program by
implementing an integrated research approach that looks at problems from a systems perspective.
This approach will  create synergy and provide  more timely and efficient benefits beyond those
possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single chemicals or problem areas.

The  new integrated research  approach will  help develop sustainable  solutions by adding  a
transformative component to EPA's existing research portfolio. This research will leverage the
diverse  capabilities of in-house  scientists  and engineers  and  bridge  traditional  scientific
disciplines. In addition, research plans will incorporate input from external stakeholders such as
federal, state and local government agencies,  non-governmental organizations, industry,  and
communities  affected by environmental problems.  This type of integrated research is expected
to be a more efficient path to developing long-term environmentally sustainable solutions.
                                           851

-------
All or portions of the following Research Programs will be integrated into the Sustainable and
Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program:
       Human Health Research
    -   Ecosystems Services Research
    -   Land Protection and Preservation Research
       Pesticides and Toxics Research
       Sustainability Research
       Fellowships
The Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program  will  provide  innovative and
creative management approaches and decision support tools for communities, regions, states and
tribes to inform improved management practices  to protect and ensure a sustainable balance
between human health and the environment.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:
Communities are increasingly challenged  to sustain the well-being  of their residents and the
benefits of nature upon which they depend.  Increasing demands for energy have an impact on
the potential for inland oil spills.  As oil spills have multi-faceted impacts on communities, local
officials are finding that more systems-oriented and  synergistic solutions  are needed.  SHC
research uses an integrated, systems approach to help communities across the United States be
better able to respond to oil spills.

Specifically, there are two main research topics  that the program will address in FY 2012 to help
communities deal with oil spills.  First, EPA will develop  protocols to  revise or test oil  spill
control  agents  or products for listing on the NCP Product Schedule and other activities deemed
necessary by EPA's Office of Emergency  Management (OEM).   Second, the Agency  will
conduct studies on the effectiveness of bioremediation for freshly spilled oil and aged residuals
of petroleum-based  oil, biodiesel, and biodiesel blends, and the performance of dispersants for
deep water applications.

Performance Targets:

Performance results for  this program  are discussed in the S&T:   Sustainable and  Healthy
Communities Research Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

The following policy changes are based on a comparison of the new FY 2012 Budget structure to
the 2010 enacted Budget and are included in the transfer from the source programs following this
section:
    •   (-$88.0) This reflects a reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.  This
       initiative targets certain categories of spending for efficiencies and reductions, including
       advisory contracts, travel, general services,  printing and supplies.  EPA will continue its
                                          852

-------
       work  to redesign  processes  and  streamline  activities in  both administrative  and
       programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

   •   (+$63.0) This increase represents the net  effect of all  other  payroll and technical
       adjustments including Information Technology  reductions,  Small Business Renovation
       Research realignments and administrative and programmatic  support realignments and
       reductions.  For more information on these adjustments, refer to the programs integrating
       into the  Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.

Transfer from source program:

   •   (+$614.0 / +0.9 FTE) This reflects a transfer of dollar and FTE resources  from the Oil
       Spill portion of the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program including $123.0
       in associated  payroll.   This transfer includes the net  effect  of all  technical adjustments
       such as IT reductions. For additional details  on this net effect, please  refer to the
       Research: Land Protection and Restoration program narrative.

Statutory Authority:

OPA, 33 U.S.C. Chapter 40; CWA, Section 311, 33 U.S.C. §1321.
                                           853

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Resource Summary Table	856
Program Projects in STAG	858
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)	861
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Clean Water SRF	862
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Drinking Water SRF	866
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Alaska Native Villages	870
   Brownfields Projects	872
   Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program	878
   Infrastructure Assistance:  Mexico Border	881
   Targeted Airshed Grants	884
Program Area: Categorical Grants	886
   Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection	887
   Categorical Grant: Brownfields	889
   Categorical Grant: Environmental Information	891
   Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	894
   Categorical Grant: Lead	896
   Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change	899
   Categorical Grant: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation	900
   Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)	903
   Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement	907
   Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation	909
   Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.  106)	913
   Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention	920
   Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	922
   Categorical Grant: Radon	925
   Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management	927
   Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance	931
   Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management	933
   Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program	935
   Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC)	939
                                         854

-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks	942
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development	945
                                      855

-------
                            Environmental Protection Agency
            FY 2012 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 2010
Enacted

$4,978,223.0
0.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$4,410,975.5
0.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$4,978,223.0
0.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget

$3,860,430.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

($1,117,793.0)
0.0
                    Bill Language: State and Tribal Assistance Grants

For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, including capitalization grants for
State revolving funds and performance partnership grants, $3,860,430,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $1,550,000,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for the Clean
Water State Revolving Funds under title  VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (the  "Act"); of which $990,000,000 shall be for making capitalization grants for the
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended: Provided,  That for fiscal year 2012, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project
applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State
for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants and not less than 10 percent of the
funds made available under this title to each State for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization  grants shall be used by the State for projects to address green infrastructure,
water or energy  efficiency  improvements,  or  other  environmentally innovative  activities;
$10,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering, planning, design, construction and related
activities in connection with the construction of high priority water and wastewater facilities in
the area of the United  States-Mexico Border, after consultation with the appropriate border
commission; $10,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of Alaska to address drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages: Provided further,  That, of
these funds: (1) the State of Alaska shall provide a match of 25 percent;  and (2) no more than 5
percent of the funds  may be used for administrative and overhead expenses; $99,041,000 shall
be  to carry out section  104(k) of the  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including grants, interagency agreements,
and associated program  support costs; and $1,201,389,000  shall be for grants,  including
associated program  support  costs,  to States, federally recognized tribes, interstate agencies,
tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies for multi-media or single media pollution
prevention,  control and abatement  and related activities, including activities pursuant to the
provisions set forth under this heading in Public  Law 104-134, and for making grants under
section 103 of the Clean Air Act for paniculate matter monitoring and data collection activities
subject to terms and conditions specified by the Administrator, of which $49,495,000 shall be for
carrying out section 128 of CERCLA, as amended,  $10,200,000 shall be for Environmental
                                           856

-------
Information Exchange Network grants, including associated program support costs, $20,000,000
shall be for grants to Federally recognized Indian tribes for implementation of environmental
programs and projects  as defined by  the  Administrator  that  complement  existing tribal
environmental program grants,  including inter agency agreements,$23,500,000 of the funds
available for grants under section 106 of the Act shall be for state participation in national- and
state-level statistical surveys of water resources and enhancements to state monitoring programs
and, in addition to funds appropriated under the heading "Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund Program'' to carry out the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in
section 9508(c)  of the Internal Revenue  Code other than section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, 1,550,000 shall be for grants to States under section 2007 (f)(2) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7)
of the Federal Water Pollution  Control  Act,  the  limitation on  the amounts in a  State water
pollution control revolving fund  that may be  used by a State to administer the fund shall not
apply to amounts included as principal in  loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2012 and prior
years where such amounts represent costs of administering the fund to  the extent that such
amounts are or  were  deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for separately from
other assets in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the fund, including administration:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act, the
Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal year under section
319 of that Act to make grants to Federally recognized Indian tribes pursuant to sections 319(h)
and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further,  That for fiscal year 2012,  notwithstanding the
limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the  Federal Water Pollution Control Act and section
1452(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up to  a total of 2 percent of the funds appropriated for
State Revolving Funds under such Acts may be reserved by the Administrator for grants under
section 518(c) and section  1452(i) of such Acts: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012,
notwithstanding the amounts specified in section 205(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, up to 1.5 percent of the aggregate funds appropriated for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund program under the Act less any sums reserved under section 518(c) of the Act, may be
reserved by the Administrator for grants made  under  title II of the Clean Water Act for American
Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and United States  Virgin Islands:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012, notwithstanding the limitations  on amounts specified
in section 1452(j) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, up  to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated for
the Drinking  Water State Revolving Fund programs  under the Safe Drinking Water Act may be
reserved by the Administrator for grants made under section 1452(j) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act: Provided further, That not more than 30 percent of the funds made available under this title
to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by the
State to provide additional subsidy to eligible  recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal,
negative interest loans, or grants  (or any combination of these), and shall be so used by the State
only where such funds are provided as  initial financing for an eligible  recipient or  to buy,
refinance, or restructure the debt obligations of eligible recipients only where  such debt was
incurred on or after enactment of this Act, except that for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization grant appropriation this section shall only apply to the portion  that exceeds
$1,000,000,000: Provided further, That no funds provided by this appropriations Act to address
the water, wastewater and other critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United States
along  the  United States-Mexico  border  shall be made available to a county or municipal
government unless that government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or other
                                          857

-------
zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the development or construction of any additional
colonia areas, or the development within an existing colonia the construction of any new home,
business, or other structure which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary infrastructure:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2012 and hereafter, of the funds provided for the Clean
Water Act  and  Safe  Drinking  Water Act  State Revolving  Fund Tribal  Set-Asides,  the
Administrator may transfer funds between those accounts in the same manner as provided to
States under section 302(s) of Public Law 104-182, as amended by Public Law 109 54. Note.—
A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time  the budget was
prepared; therefore,  this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242, as
amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing
resolution.
                               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
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska
Native Villages
Brownfields Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program
Targeted Airshed Grants
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
FY2010
Enacted

$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$13,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$17,000.0
$3,697,000.0

$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
FY2010
Actuals

$1,695,365.8
$1, 143,484.5
$16,634.7
$133,697.0
$68.2
$115,807.2
$10,000.0
$24,503.5
$3,139,560.9

$10,194.2
$56,100.7
$10,618.9
$103,161.8
$2,863.1
FY2011
Annualized
CR

$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$13,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$17,000.0
$3,697,000.0

$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$1,550,000.0
$990,000.0
$10,000.0
$99,041.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$2,659,041.0

$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,200.0
$103,412.0
$0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($550,000.0)
($397,000.0)
($3,000.0)
($959.0)
$0.0
($60,000.0)
($20,000.0)
($7,000.0)
($1,037,959.0)

$0.0
$0.0
$200.0
$66.0
$0.0
                                          858

-------
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Local Govt
Climate Change
Categorical Grant: Multi-Media
Tribal Implementation
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: State and Local
Air Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
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: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands
Program Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
Congressional Priorities
FY2010
Enacted
$14,564.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$200,857.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0

$18,500.0
$210,764.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,116,446.0

FY2010
Actuals
$15,162.6
$9,500.0
$0.0
$194,818.5
$18,494.3
$13,195.4

$18,314.0
$207,627.1
$225,941.1
$4,484.8
$107,095.7
$8,572.4
$223,152.7
$202.6
$2,827.2
$5,401.9
$13,408.0
$65,746.2
$11,323.6
$3,184.3
$63.0
$16,236.1
$1,121,749.1

FY2011
Annualized
CR
$14,564.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$200,857.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0

$18,500.0
$210,764.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,116,446.0

FY2012
Pres Budget
$14,855.0
$0.0
$20,000.0
$164,757.0
$19,085.0
$13,140.0

$11,300.0
$238,964.0
$250,264.0
$5,039.0
$109,700.0
$8,074.0
$305,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,201.0
$13,566.0
$71,375.0
$11,109.0
$1,550.0
$0.0
$15,167.0
$1,201,389.0

FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$291.0
($10,000.0)
$20,000.0
($36,100.0)
$374.0
($380.0)

($7,200.0)
$28,200.0
$21,000.0
$99.0
$4,000.0
$0.0
$78,920.0
$0.0
$0.0
$102.0
$266.0
$8,500.0
$218.0
($950.0)
$0.0
($1,663.0)
$84,943.0

859

-------
Program Project
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Subtotal, Congressionally
Mandated Projects
TOTAL, EPA
FY2010
Enacted
$164,777.0
$164,777.0
$4,978,223.0
FY2010
Actuals
$149,665.5
$149,665.5
$4,410,975.5
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$164,777.0
$164,777.0
$4,978,223.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$0.0
$0.0
$3,860,430.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($164,777.0)
($164,777.0)
($1,117,793.0)
860

-------
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                         861

-------
                                             Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
                                    Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                                                          Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                         Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$2,100,000.0
$2,100,000.0
$0.0
$2,100,000.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$1,695,365.8
$1,664,144.7
$31,221.1
$1,695,365.8
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$2,100,000.0
$2,100,000.0
$0.0
$2,100,000.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$1,550,000.0
$1,550,000.0
$0.0
$1,550,000.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($550,000.0)
($550,000.0)
$0.0
($550,000.0)
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  constructing wastewater treatment facilities,
implementing nonpoint source management plans,  and developing and implementing estuary
conservation and management  plans.  This  program  also includes a provision for set-aside
funding for tribes to better address serious water infrastructure  problems and associated health
impacts.  This federal investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of funds to
address water quality needs.1

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.   EPA  estimates that for  every federal  dollar
contributed, more  than two dollars are provided to municipalities.  As of early FY 2010, the
federal government had  appropriated over $33  billion  for the  state CWSRFs.   The revolving
nature of the funds and substantial additions from states has multiplied the  federal investment to
make over $84 billion available for  clean water projects since the program's  inception.   The
CWSRF  program  measures and tracks the  average national rate at which available funds are
loaned, assuring that the fund expeditiously supports EPA's water quality goals.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Recognizing the substantial remaining need for additional wastewater infrastructure as well as
the historical effectiveness and efficiency  of the  CWSRF program, the  Agency's FY  2012
1 See http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf for more information.
2 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 (As of June 30,2010).
                                            862

-------
President's Budget requests  $1.550 billion for the CWSRF.  Combined with the FY 2009
appropriation ($689 million), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($4
billion), enacted FY 2010 appropriation ($2.1 billion), and the FY 2011 Annualized Continuing
Resolution ($2.1  billion),  approximately  $10.4  billion  will  be  invested  through federal
capitalization grants awarded to the CWSRF over the course of four years.

As part of the Administration's long-term  strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water
Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with states and communities to enhance technical,
managerial and financial capacity.  Important to the technical  capacity  will  be enhancing
alternatives analysis to expand "green infrastructure" options and their multiple benefits. Future
year budgets  for SRF gradually adjust, taking into account repayments, through 2016 with the
goal of providing, on average, about 5 percent of water infrastructure spending annually. When
coupled with increasing repayments from loans made in past years by states the annual funding
will  allow the  SRFs  to finance a  significant  percentage  in clean water  and drinking water
infrastructure. Federal  dollars provided through the SRFs will  act  as a catalyst  for efficient
system-wide planning and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. Overall, the
Administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs.
For FY 2012,  EPA will continue  to implement  its policy  to  improve the  sustainability of
wastewater systems and the long-term financial, managerial, and environmental sustainability of
the water sector. As part of that strategy, EPA is working to ensure that federal dollars provided
through the SRFs act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning, improvements in technical,
financial and managerial  capacity, and the design, construction and ongoing management of
sustainable water infrastructure.

This federal investment, along with other traditional sources of financing, will enable substantial
progress for the nation's  clean water needs  and sustainable  infrastructure priorities, and will
significantly contribute to the long-term environmental  goal  of attaining designated uses.  To
achieve these significant  outcomes,  EPA continues to  work with states to meet several  key
objectives, such as:

   •   Funding projects designed as part of an integrated watershed approach;
   •   Linking projects to environmental results; and
   •   Maintaining the excellent fiduciary condition of CWSRF.

In FY 2012, the Agency is requesting a tribal set-aside of up  to 2 percent, and a territories set-
aside of up to 1.5 percent of the funds appropriated from the CWSRF.  Resources for the tribes
and territories will provide much needed assistance to these communities  and help meet long-
term performance goals and  address significant public health concerns.  The 2002 Johannesburg
World Summit adopted the goal of reducing the number of people lacking access to safe drinking
water and basic sanitation by 50 percent by calendar year 2015.  EPA will support this goal
through the CWSRF Indian  Set-Aside, which  will provide for the development of sanitation
facilities for tribes.

In FY 2012,  the Agency requests that not more than 30 percent  of the CWSRF funds made
available to each state be used to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of
forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any  combination of these).  The
                                           863

-------
additional subsidization would be limited to initial financings for eligible recipients or to buy,
refinance, or restructure the debt obligations of eligible  recipients only  where such debt was
incurred on or after the enactment of this Act. This provision only applies to the portion of the
appropriation that exceeds $1 billion.

In FY 2012, EPA is requesting transfer authority between the Clean Water Indian  Set-Aside
Grant and Drinking  Water Infrastructure Grants  Tribal Set-Aside Programs to allow tribes the
flexibility to direct drinking water and wastewater funds to the highest priority projects.  This
would provide the same authority to tribes that is currently available to states.

In FY 2012, and consistent with the FY 2011 Annualized Continuing Resolution, the Agency, to
the extent  there are sufficient eligible project applications, will assure  that not less than 20
percent of the portion of a capitalization grant made available shall be for projects, or portions of
projects, that include green  infrastructure, water or  energy efficiency improvements or other
environmentally innovative activities. The resulting projects will enhance  community and utility
sustainability.

EPA measures performance by using the CWSRF benefits reporting system which is designed to
track public health and environmental goals progress under both the base program  and projects
funded under ARRA. The benefits reporting system allows the program to more effectively link
CWSRF financing to the protection and restoration of our nation's waters.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(bpb) Fund utilization
rate for the CWSRF.
FY 2010
Target
92
FY 2010
Actual
100
FY2011
CR
Target
94.5
FY 2012
Target
94.5
Units
Percent
Measure
Type




Output




Measure
(pi2) Percent of time
that sewage treatment
plants in the U.S.
Pacific Island
Territories comply
with permit limits for
biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and
total suspended solids
(TSS).
FY 2010
Target




62




FY 2010
Actual




52




FY2011
CR
Target




63




FY 2012
Target




64




Units




Percent Time




                                           864

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(L) Number of
waterbody segments
identified by States in
2002 as not attaining
standards, where water
quality standards are
now fully attained
(cumulative).
FY 2010
Target



2,809



FY 2010
Actual



2,909



FY2011
CR
Target



3,073



FY 2012
Target



3,273



Units



Segments



Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(bpc) Percent of all
major publicly-owned
treatment works
(POTWs) that comply
with their permitted
wastewater discharge
standards
FY 2010
Target
86
FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
3/2011
FY2011
CR
Target
86
FY 2012
Target
86
Units
Percent
POTWs
Since 2001, fund utilization has remained relatively stable and strong at over 90 percent. This
national ratio is an aggregate of fund activity in the 51 individual CWSRF programs (50 states
and Puerto Rico). Small year-to-year fluctuations in the value of the national ratio are 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.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$550,000.0) This reflects a decrease for clean water infrastructure projects.  However,
       the Agency's FY 2012 request level represents a substantial increase over requested and
       enacted  levels prior to FY 2010. Combined  with the  FY 2009 appropriation  ($689
       million), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($4 billion), the FY
       2010 enacted  appropriation  ($2.1 billion),  and the FY  2011 annualized continuing
       resolution of $2.1 billion, approximately $10.4 billion will be invested through federal
       capitalization grants awarded to the CWSRF over the course of the last four years.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act CWA: 33 U.S.C 1381 - Section  1381
                                          865

-------
                                          Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
                                   Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                      Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$1,387,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$0.0
$1,387,000.0
0.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$1,143,484.5
$1,167,109.2
($23,624.7)
$1,143,484.5
0.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$1,387,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$0.0
$1,387,000.0
0.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$990,000.0
$990,000.0
$0.0
$990,000.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($397,000.0)
($397,000.0)
$0.0
($397,000.0)
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 (SOWA) requirements and to protect public
health. To reduce public health risks and to help ensure safe drinking water nationwide, EPA
makes capitalization grants to states, so that they can provide low cost loans and other assistance
to eligible public water systems.  The program emphasizes that, in addition  to maintaining the
statutory focus on assisting the greatest public health risks first, states can utilize additional tools
to assist small  and disadvantaged communities, and fund programs that encourage pollution
prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water.  The DWSRF is a key component of EPA's
Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative.

States have considerable   flexibility to  tailor their DWSRF  program   to  their  unique
circumstances.  This flexibility ensures that  each  state has the opportunity to carefully and
strategically consider how best to achieve the maximum public health protection. For example,
states can:

   •   Establish programs to provide additional  subsidies,  including negative interest loans  or
       principal forgiveness to communities that the state determines to be disadvantaged;

   •   Determine the proper balance between infrastructure investment and   Set-Aside use for
       authorized SDWA program  development and implementation; and

   •   Set-aside capitalization grant funds to provide  other types of  assistance to encourage
       more efficient and sustainable drinking water  system management and to fund programs
       to protect source water from contamination.  (Historically,  the  states have set-aside  an
       annual average of 16 percent of the  funds awarded to them for these purposes, which
       includes 4 percent to run the program).
                                           866

-------
For FY 2010 to FY 2013, appropriated funds will be allocated to the states in accordance with
each state's proportion of total drinking water infrastructure need as determined by the most
recent Needs Survey and Assessment.3 Also, there is a statutory requirement that each state and
the District of Columbia receive no less than one percent of the allotment.

The federal  investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of funds to address
drinking water  infrastructure needs.  States are required to provide a  20  percent match for their
capitalization grant.  Some states elect to leverage their capitalization grants through the  public
debt markets to enable the state to provide more assistance.  These  features, coupled with the
revolving fund  design of the program, have enabled the states to provide assistance equal to 177
percent of the federal capitalization invested in the program since its inception in 1997. In other
words, for every $1 the federal government invests in this program, the states, in total, have been
able to deliver $1.77 in assistance to water systems.

As outlined  in Section  1452(d)(2) of the SDWA, up to 30 percent of a state's capitalization grant
may be used for subsidization.  For FY 2012, EPA will encourage states to utilize the subsidy to
assist small  systems with standards compliance.  To the extent there are sufficient eligible project
applications, at least 10 percent  of the portion of a capitalization  grant made available for
DWSRF projects shall be for projects, or portions of projects, that include green infrastructure,
water or energy  efficiency  improvements or other  environmentally  innovative activities. The
Agency is proposing ten percent for "green" projects rather than the twenty percent target under
ARRA  and  the FY 2010 appropriation.  The Agency believes that under  ARRA and FY 2010
very significant  investments  have  been  made in  water and  energy efficiency projects.
Continuing  to require  twenty percent is likely to force  states to bypass priority public  health
projects in order to reach projects with "green" components.

Prior to allotting funds to the states, EPA is required by Sections 1452(i)(l), 1452 (i)(2), 1452 (j),
and 1452(o) of the SDWA, as amended, to reserve certain  national level allotments.  $2 million
must, by statute,  be allocated to small systems monitoring for unregulated contaminants.  EPA
will continue to reserve up to 2 percent  (up from 1.5 percent as outlined in Section 1452 (i) of
SDWA, as amended) of appropriated funds for Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages.  These
funds are awarded either directly to tribes or, on behalf of tribes, to the Indian Health Service
through interagency agreements.  EPA will continue to set aside up to 1.5  percent for territories
(up from 0.33 percent as outlined in Section 1452 (j) of SDWA, as amended).4

The DWSRF program provides access to financing and offers a limited subsidy to help utilities
address long-term needs associated  with water infrastructure.   Most  DWSRF assistance  is
offered in the form of loans which water utilities repay from the revenues they generate through
the rates they charge their customers for service. Our nation's water utilities face the need to
significantly increase the rate at which they invest  in drinking water infrastructure  repair and
replacement to  keep pace with their aging infrastructure, much of which is approaching the end
of its useful  life.
3 The 2007 Needs Survey was released in 2009.
4 For more information please see
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=d33d92f2df290eOc2365599cb09fD669
                                            867

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2012,  EPA is requesting  a total of $990 million to fund approximately  400 new
infrastructure improvement projects to public drinking water systems.   The FY 2012  request
reflects a reduction of $397 million to the DWSRF. The requested funding for this program will
support needed infrastructure  investments to rebuild and  enhance America's drinking water
infrastructure.

As part of the Administration's long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water
Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with states  and communities to enhance technical,
managerial and  financial  capacity. Important  to the technical capacity will be enhancing
alternatives analysis to expand "green infrastructure" options and their multiple benefits. Future
year budgets for the SRFs gradually adjust, taking into account repayments, through 2016 with
the  goal of providing, on  average, about 5 percent of water infrastructure spending  annually.
When  coupled with increasing repayments from loans made in past years by states the annual
funding will allow the SRFs to finance a significant percentage in clean water and drinking water
infrastructure.  Federal dollars  provided through the  SRFs  will act as  a catalyst for efficient
system-wide planning and  ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. Overall, the
Administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs.

A recent  performance assessment 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.

In FY 2012, EPA will request transfer authority between the Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant
and Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside Programs to allow the flexibility to
direct drinking water and wastewater funds to highest priority projects.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(ape) Fund utilization
rate for the DWSRF.
FY 2010
Target
86
FY 2010
Actual
91.3
FY2011
CR
Target
89
FY 2012
Target
89
Units
Percent

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(aa) Percent of
population served by
CWSs that will receive
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based drinking

FY 2010
Target


90



FY 2010
Actual


92


FY2011
CR
Target


91



FY 2012
Target


91



Units


Percent
Population


                                           868

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
water standards
through approaches
including effective
treatment & source
water protection.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units

Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(apm) Percent of
community water
systems that meet all
applicable health-based
standards through
approaches that include
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2010
Target




90




FY 2010
Actual




89.6




FY2011
CR
Target




90




FY 2012
Target




90




Units



Pprppnt
A wlv/wllL
Systems




Measure
Type





Outcome




Measure
(pil) Percent of
population in each of
the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories (served by
community water
systems) that meet all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards, measured on
a four quarter rolling
average basis.
FY 2010
Target





73




FY 2010
Actual





82




FY2011
CR
Target





75




FY 2012
Target





78




Units




Pprrpnt
-1 ^'Iv'^'llL
Population




FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$397,000.0)  This  reflects  a  reduction for drinking water infrastructure  projects.
       Combined with the  FY 2009 appropriation ($829  million),  American Recovery and
       Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding ($2 billion), the FY 2010 enacted appropriation
       ($1.387  billion),  and  the  2011  Annualized  Continuing Resolution ($1.387 billion),
       approximately $6.5 billion will have been invested through federal capitalization grants
       awarded to the DWSRF over the course of four years.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A, 42U.S.C. §300j-12, Section 1452.
                                          869

-------
                                        Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
                                   Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                         Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$13,000.0
$13,000.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$16,634.7
$16,634.7
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$13,000.0
$13,000.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($3,000.0)
($3,000.0)
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 vulnerable  rural and
Native Alaska communities.  In many of these at-risk communities, honeybuckets and pit privies
are the sole means of sewage collection and disposal. Alaskan water and sewer systems are
challenged by issues associated with small  system  size in addition  to the complications of
permafrost and a shortened construction season.

EPA's grant to the State  of Alaska provides funding to underserved communities in order to
improve or construct drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities for these communities
and thereby improve  local  health and sanitation  conditions.  The State of Alaska is best
positioned  to  deliver services  as it  coordinates  with  the  federal  agencies  and  with the
communities  themselves.  This program  also  supports training,  technical assistance,  and
educational programs related to the financial management  and operation and maintenance of
sanitation systems.5

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The ANV program is administered by the State of Alaska and provides infrastructure funding to
ANVs and rural Alaska communities  that lack access to basic  sanitation. The FY 2012 request
of $10  million will fund  a portion of the need  in rural Alaskan homes and will be used to
maintain the existing level of wastewater and drinking water  services that meets public health
standards,  given increased regulatory requirements on drinking water systems and the rate of
construction of new homes in rural Alaska.

In FY 2012, the Agency  will continue to work with the State of Alaska to address  sanitation
conditions  and determine  how to maximize the value of the federal investment in rural Alaska.
5https://owpubauthor.epa. go v/type/watersheds/waste water/Alaska-Native- Village-and-Rural-Communities-Grant-Program.cfm.
                                           870

-------
EPA will continue to implement the 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 has made great strides in implementing more
focused and intensive oversight of the ANV grant program through cost analyses, post-award
monitoring and timely closeout of projects. EPA also has collaborated with the State of Alaska
to establish program goals and  objectives, which are now incorporated directly  into the state
priority system for selecting candidate projects.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(Opb) Percent of
serviceable rural
Alaska homes with
access to drinking
water supply and
wastewater disposal.

FY 2010
Target


98



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
5/2011


FY2011
CR
Target


92



FY 2012
Target


93



Units


Percent
Homes


Measure
Type



Efficiency



Measure
(Opd) Percent of
project federal funds
expended on time
within the anticipated
project construction
schedule set forth in
the Management
Control Policy.
FY 2010
Target



94.5



FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target



94.5



FY 2012
Target



95.5



Units



Percent
Projects



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•   (-$3,000.0)  This reduces a Congressionally directed increase in funding in FY 2010 that is
    not carried forward in FY 2012.  The FY 2012 investment will be used to fund wastewater
    and drinking water services that meet public health standards.
Statutory Authority:

Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-182, Section 303.
U.S.C. § 1263a. Public Law 111-18, Department of Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act 2010.
33
                                          871

-------
                                                                    Brownfields Projects
                                   Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$100,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$100,000.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$133,697.0
$122,737.1
$10,959.9
$133,697.0
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$100,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$100,000.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$99,041.0
$99,041.0
$0.0
$99,041.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($959.0)
($959.0)
$0.0
($959.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

Economic changes over several decades have left thousands of communities with contaminated
properties and abandoned sites known as brownfields.6  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 the  Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 104(k) and related authorities.7

Under this program, EPA will provide:  1) assessment cooperative agreements for recipients to
inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct cleanup and redevelopment planning related to
Brownfields  sites; 2) targeted Brownfields  assessments  performed under EPA  contracts and
interagency agreements with federal partners; 3) cleanup  cooperative agreements for recipients
to clean up sites they own; 4) capitalization  cooperative agreements for Revolving Loan Funds
(RLFs) to provide low interest loans and sub grants for  cleanups; 5) job  training  cooperative
agreements;  and 6) financial assistance to localities, states, tribes, and non-profit organizations
for research,  training, and technical assistance for Brownfields-related activities.  In  addition,
EPA  will offer technical  assistance, research, and training  assistance to individuals and
organizations from EPA  contractors and federal  partners under interagency  agreements to
facilitate the inventory,  assessment,  and   remediation of  Brownfields  sites,  community
involvement, and site preparation.

The Brownfields program also received funding under the FY 2009  American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). These funds have been obligated and will continue to be outlayed as
recipients complete their activities  and submit invoices for reimbursement to EPA  through FY
2011  and FY 2012.  As the Real Estate and  Redevelopment sectors of the economy have been
6 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/index.html.
7 Under CERCLA 104(k)(12)(B), the Brownfields program must allocate 25 percent of the funds appropriated to carry out
 CERCLA 104(k) to address sites contaminated by petroleum.
                                           872

-------
among the hardest hit during the  downturn, the outlay rates  among Brownfields projects is
slower than the outlay rates of other EPA programs.  Contributing to the relatively low outlay
rate is the fact that many projects are  contingent on state and local funds as well as leveraged
private  investment.  Additional  details  can  be found  at  http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and
http://www.recovery.gov.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance  Plan:

In FY 2012, the Brownfields program will continue to foster federal, state,  local, and public-
private partnerships to return properties to productive economic use in communities. Beginning
in FY 2010, the Brownfields program refocused resources  allocated  for the Assessment,
Revolving Loan Fund and Cleanup (ARC) grants to support targeted brownfields assessments, as
well as technical assistance for reuse planning at specified sites. Emphasis was placed on "cities-
in-transition," which  are communities that are struggling with high unemployment as a result of
structural changes to their economies even as  recovery takes hold.

This approach emphasizes  environmental health  and protection  that  also achieves economic
development and job creation through  the redevelopment of Brownfields properties, particularly
in underserved and disadvantaged communities. This will be achieved through area-wide plans
that identify viable end uses of Brownfields properties and associated infrastructure investments
and environmental improvements in the surrounding area to foster the redevelopment of the
Brownfields properties and revitalize the  community.

The Brownfields Area-Wide Planning  projects are one of EPA's Priority Goals.  The EPA has
set a Priority Goal to initiate 20 Brownfields area-wide planning projects, which will include
community-level efforts to benefit under-served and economically disadvantaged communities.
The projects  will allow those communities  to assess and address a  single large or multiple
brownfields properties within their boundaries, thereby enabling redevelopment of brownfields
properties on a broader scale.

For the 23 community-level projects  that were actually selected, EPA will provide technical
assistance, coordinate its water and air quality enforcement efforts, and work with other federal
agencies, states, tribes and local governments (as appropriate) to implement associated targeted
environmental improvements,  such  as planned  neighborhood investments or services needed,
identified in each community's area-wide plan.  This Priority Goal  reflects  emphasis on both
environmental health and protection and economic development  and job creation through the
redevelopment  of Brownfields  properties,  particularly  in  underserved and  disadvantaged
communities.   This  goal  also will be  addressed by the new area-wide planning approach
described above.

Through area-wide planning, communities may take a more holistic  view of redevelopment,
identifying how multiple (as  opposed to targeted individual) Brownfields  properties can  be
redeveloped to meet their needs for jobs, housing, recreation, health facilities, and other land
uses  that would make for a  more viable and sustainable community.  This also will help
communities  identify opportunities  to leverage additional public and  private investments.  In
addition, redeveloping these  once  productive properties, rather  than redeveloping greenfield
                                          873

-------
properties, limits urban sprawl and,  consequently, reduces the environmental impact associated
with sprawl.

This program helps  to meet the Administrator's priority of expanding the Conversation on
Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice, as it is designed to confront local
environmental and public health challenges related to brownfields and benefit underserved or
economically disadvantaged communities. With a strong emphasis on inclusiveness, facilitating
community involvement and solid local partnerships among governments, nonprofits, and other
community-based organizations, the brownfields area-wide  planning  process  will focus on
bringing new groups into the process of local decision making. The  resulting area-wide plans
will contain brownfields site(s) reuse and neighborhood revitalization strategies that will inform
the assessment and cleanup of the sites within the brownfields-impacted area.

This program broadly supports the America's Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative which is intended
to develop a community-based 21st century conservation agenda that can also spur job creation in the
tourism and  recreation industries.  EPA will join in the coordinated efforts of other Agencies to
leverage support of the federal  government to help community-driven efforts  to  protect and
restore our America's outdoor legacy by promoting the planning of urban parks and greenways
on Brownfields sites.

In FY 2012, this program will support the following activities, as described below:

   •   Increase allocated  resources  for the Brownfields area-wide planning effort which will
       fund approximately 20 area-wide planning projects, with  a combination of grant and
       technical assistance funding, at a maximum level of $350 thousand per project.  The
       funding opportunity (estimated $7.0 million) will be made available through a  national
       competition, and cooperative agreements and/or direct Agency technical  assistance will
       be  awarded  under  CERCLA  Section   104(k)(6)  to  provide planning  assistance,
       coordination of enforcement, water and air quality programs, and work with other federal
       agencies, states,  tribes and local governments  to target environmental  improvements
       identified in each community's area-wide plan.

   •   Funding will  support at least  82 assessment cooperative agreements (estimated  $20.2
       million) that  recipients  may use to inventory,  assess, cleanup and reuse planning at
       Brownfields sites, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(2).  In FY 2012, EPA expects to
       award  fewer  individual  assessment  cooperative  agreements due  to  the  Assessment
       Coalition option which allows three or more eligible entities to submit one grant proposal
       for up to $1.0 million to assess sites and target more areas. (This option became available
       in FY 2009.)

   •   The Agency will award approximately seven  RLF cooperative agreements (estimated $7
       million) of up to $1.0 million each  per eligible entity and provide supplemental funding
       (estimated $8.0 million) to existing high performing RLF recipients. With  this shifting of
       focus from assessment activity to support  existing RLF cooperative agreements and by
       aggressively managing existing grant funding, the Agency  estimates total Supplemental
       RLF Funding in the approximate range of $10 million. The RLF program enables eligible
                                          874

-------
       entities to make  loans  and subgrants  for  the  cleanup of properties and  encourage
       communities to leverage other funds into  their RLF pools and cleanup cooperative
       agreements as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(3) and (4).

   •   Funding will support at least 96 direct cleanup cooperative agreements to enable eligible
       entities to clean up properties (estimated $19.2 million) that the recipient of the funding
       owns. EPA plans to increase funding to support more cleanup cooperative agreements in
       2012. The Agency will award direct cleanup cooperative agreements of up to $200,000
       per site to eligible entities and non-profits, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(3).

   •   Assessment and cleanup of abandoned underground storage  tanks  (USTs)  and other
       petroleum  contamination found on Brownfields  properties (estimated $25.0 million) in
       approximately 45 Brownfields communities, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(2) and
       CERCLA 104(k)(3).

   •   Environmental  Workforce  Development  and  Job  Training  cooperative agreements
       (estimated $2.6  million) will provide funding for 13-14 cooperative agreements of up to
       $300,000 each  for a  two  year  period. This  funding will provide job  training for
       community residents to  take advantage of new jobs leveraged by the assessment and
       cleanup of Brownfields, as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6), as well as other "green
       jobs" opportunities.

   •   EPA will  provide funding for Targeted Brownfields  Assessments to be  performed
       through contracts and interagency agreements, as authorized by CERCLA 104(k)(2) and
       the terms of EPA's appropriation act.  This includes an estimated $4.5 million  to perform
       Targeted Brownfields Assessments for 35 communities.

   •   Funding will also support additional training, research, and technical assistance grants
       and cooperative agreements and direct services from contractors and under interagency
       agreements (estimated $6.5 million), as authorized under CERCLA 104(k)(6).

In an effort to improve the accountability,  transparency,  and effectiveness  of EPA's cleanup
programs, EPA initiated a multi-year  integrated cleanup initiative (ICI) in FY 2010 to better
utilize EPA's assessment and cleanup authorities,  in an integrated and transparent fashion, to
address a greater number of contaminated sites,  accelerate cleanups, and put those sites back into
productive use while protecting human health  and  the  environment.  By bringing to bear the
relevant tools available in each  of the cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Removal, and
Federal Facilities; Brownfields; Underground  Storage Tanks  and RCRA Corrective Action),
EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites.

EPA developed an implementation  plan to further describe the goals and objectives of the (ICI)
and identify ongoing or  new actions  the Agency will advance with our partners  during the
upcoming years to coordinate the relevant tools in the  most effective and efficient  manner to
appropriately service communities.  Collectively, the actions establish a framework of activities,
milestone dates, and deliverables that will effectively address a greater number of contaminated
                                          875

-------
sites, accelerate cleanups, return sites to reuse, and increase information transparency across all
of EPA's cleanup programs.
In addition  to  furthering the Agency's primary goal  of protecting human  health and the
environment, this coordinated approach will provide economic revitalization and job creation.
The  Brownfields project resources  contribute to the  overall Brownfields program  goals and
measures.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(B29) Brownfield
properties assessed.
FY 2010
Target
1,000
FY 2010
Actual
1,326
FY2011
CR
Target
1,000
FY 2012
Target
1000
Units
Properties

Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(B32) Number of
properties cleaned up
using Brownfields
funding.

FY 2010
Target

60


FY 2010
Actual

109

FY2011
CR
Target

60


FY 2012
Target

60


Units

Properties

Measure
Type
Output
Measure
(B34) Jobs leveraged
from Brownfields
activities.
FY 2010
Target
5,000
FY 2010
Actual
5,177
FY2011
CR
Target
5,000
FY 2012
Target
5000
Units
Jobs

Measure
Type


Output


Measure
(B37) Billions of
dollars of cleanup and
redevelopment funds
leveraged at
Brownfields sites.

FY 2010
Target


0.9


FY 2010
Actual


1.4

FY2011
CR
Target


0.9


FY 2012
Target


0.9


Units


(Billions)

                                          876

-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(B33) Acres of
Brownfields properties
made ready for reuse.
FY 2010
Target
1,000
FY 2010
Actual
3,627
FY2011
CR
Target
1,000
FY 2012
Target
1000
Units
Acres
EPA's performance measures for the  Brownfields  program are mainly based on outputs and
outcomes of assessment, cleanup and RLF cooperative agreements. These outputs and outcomes
depend on the maturity of each cooperative agreement, which usually have a performance period
range of  three  to  five years.  For  assessment  and  cleanup  cooperative  agreements, the
performance period is three years, and five years for RLF cooperative agreements.

Moreover, the Brownfields performance measure targets do not reflect the anticipated results
from the ARRA funding received in FY 2009. Targets for ARRA funds were established and are
being reported separately from the results achieved through the regular appropriation.

 FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars  in Thousands):

   •   (-$959.0) This reflects a  reduction as part of the Administrative Efficiency Initiative.
       This  initiative  targets certain categories of spending  for efficiencies  and reductions,
       including advisory contracts, travel,  general services,  printing and supplies.  EPA will
       continue its work to redesign its processes and streamline activities in both administrative
       and programmatic areas to achieve these savings.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as  amended by the
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. -
Sections 101, 104 (k), and 107.
                                          877

-------
                                              Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
                                   Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Budget Authority
Recovery Act Budget Authority
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted

$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
0.0

FY2010
Actuals

$115,807.2
$115,835.4
($28.2)
$115,807.2
0.0

FY2011
Annualized
CR

$60,000.0
$60,000.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
0.0

FY2012
Pres Budget

$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($60,000.0)
($60,000.0)
$0.0
($60,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Grant Program provides immediate, cost-effective
emission  reductions from existing  diesel  engines through  engine retrofits, rebuilds and
replacements;  switching to cleaner fuels; idling reduction strategies; and  other clean diesel
strategies. The program  targets  fleets in five sectors:   freight, construction, school buses,
agriculture, and ports.  The DERA program was initially authorized in sections 791-797 of the
Energy  Policy Act  of  2005.  On January 4, 2011, the President  signed into law the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act of 2010, which modifies and reauthorizes the EPA's Diesel Emission
Reduction Program  through FY 2016.  In the  face of significant budget constraints, EPA has
made the  difficult budget decisions not  to propose new DERA grant funding for FY 2012.
During this time, the program will continue to support already on-going projects funded through
DERA and stimulus funds, adding to the tremendous public health benefits associated with the
program that have resulted from significant reductions  in air pollution, particularly in our cities
and around our ports and transportation hubs.

Reducing  emissions from  diesel engines is one of the  most important public health challenges
facing the country. The DERA program covers  existing diesel engines used in both highway and
nonroad vehicles  and equipment.  These legacy engines are not subject to new, more stringent
emissions standards issued in 2007, 2008 and  2010, which apply to new engines. These older
engines can remain  in  service for as long as 30 years.  While the DERA grants accelerate the
pace at  which dirty  engines are retired or retrofitted, pollution  emissions from the legacy fleet
will be reduced over time without additional DERA funding as portions of the fleet turnover and
are replaced with  new engines that meet modern emissions standards. Retrofitting or replacing
diesel engines reduces paniculate matter (PM) emissions up to  95 percent, smog-forming
emissions,  such  as  hydrocarbons  (HC)  and nitrogen oxide (NOx), up to  90  percent, and
greenhouse gases up to  20 percent in the upgraded vehicles.
                                          878

-------
In FY 2008, the DERA program reduced the emissions of approximately 14,000 diesel vehicles.
The immediate environmental and public health benefits achieved under DERA were recognized
with $300 million in additional funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
Additionally, this program injected cash into the economy and created jobs through purchases of
new technologies with lower diesel emissions, such as pollution control equipment,  new clean
engines, replacement vehicles, cleaner fuels and other products EPA received an unprecedented
response for this funding -  with applications requesting approximately $2 billion. In addition,
these applicants  offered to match those funds with over $2 billion additional funding.  In FY
2009, DERA funds paid to retrofit or replace approximately 30 thousand engines.

In the most recent DERA funding competition ($120 million in combined FY 2009 and FY 2010
funding), EPA  received  applications requesting $518  million and offering $840  million in
matching funds.  EPA awarded 84 new competitive grants.  In addition, 51 State Clean Diesel
grants (50 States and the District of Columbia) were amended to add FY 2009 and FY 2010
funds for clean diesel projects. Based on EPA's experience to date, every $1 million of DERA
program grants/loans successfully leveraged at least $2 million in additional funding  assistance.
These projects have  or will  eliminate tens of thousands of tons of pollution from  the air we
breathe, which,  according to EPA estimates, will result in up to $1.4 billion in health benefits.
According to these same  estimates, every $1 spent retrofitting or replacing the oldest and most
polluting diesel  engines leads to $13  in health benefits. However, as the program begins to
retrofit or replace engines that are not as old and polluting, the cost effectiveness  of the program
decreases.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

EPA is not requesting DERA grant funds for FY 2012.

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to manage DERA grants and loans issued in prior years. Over
the last several years, EPA has awarded nearly $500 million in grant funding through  the DERA
programs to state  and local  governments, non-governmental organizations, port authorities,
school districts,  and others.

   *   EPA will track, assess and report the results of these DERA clean diesel  grants, such as
       numbers of engines, emissions benefits and cost-benefit information.

   •   EPA will continue to provide diesel  emission  reduction technology verification  and
       evaluation and provide that information to the public.

Performance Targets:

Work under this  program  supports  multiple strategic  objectives.  EPA  assesses program
performance by tracking the number of projects completed and the resulting emission reductions.

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Federal Support for  Air
Quality Management Program Project in Environmental  Programs and Management and can be
found in the Four Year Array in Tab 11.
                                          879

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    *   (-$60,000.0) This reduction reflects  elimination of DERA  grant funding.   While the
    DERA grants accelerate the pace at which dirty engines are retired or retrofitted, pollution
    emissions from the legacy fleet will be reduced over time without additional DERA funding
    as portions  of the fleet  turnover and are replaced with  new  engines that  meet modern
    emissions standards

Statutory Authority:

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Sections 741 and 791-797; H.R. 5809 Diesel Emissions Reduction
Act of 2010.
                                          880

-------
                                               Infrastructure Assistance:  Mexico Border
                                   Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$17,000.0
$17,000.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$24,503.5
$24,503.5
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$17,000.0
$17,000.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($7,000.0)
($7,000.0)
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. The rapid increase in population and industrialization in
the border cities  has overwhelmed existing wastewater treatment and drinking water supply
facilities. Untreated sewage pollutes urban waters that flow north into the U.S. from Tijuana,
Mexicali, and Nogales, into the Rio Grande, or into the Pacific Ocean.  EPA works closely with
program partners to evaluate public health and environmental needs and to provide grant funding
in underserved communities for the planning, design, and construction of high priority water and
wastewater treatment facilities along the border.

The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program will continue to work with the ten Border
States (four U.S. and six Mexican) and local communities to improve the region's water quality
and public health.  The U.S. and Mexican governments will collaborate on water infrastructure
projects to reduce health risks to residents including sensitive populations of children and elders
who may currently lack access to  safe drinking water and sanitation. Additionally, by providing
homes with access to basic sanitation, EPA and its partners will reduce the discharge of untreated
wastewater into surface and groundwater.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Since 1994, Congress has appropriated approximately $1 billion in State and  Tribal  Assistance
Grants (STAG) for water infrastructure projects in the Border Region.  Of this  amount, the U.S.-
Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program has awarded approximately $657 million to the
Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) at  the North American Development  Bank
(NADB) for the construction of high-priority drinking  water and  wastewater infrastructure
projects.  To date, the program has funded 93 projects. The total costs of those projects amounts
to $1.7 billion  as a  result  of EPA grants leveraging over $1.1 billion  from other  sources to
finance the projects.  More than five million people are benefiting from 68 completed projects
and more than eight million people will benefit once the 25 projects that are under construction
are completed.
                                           881

-------
To  ensure  responsible fiscal management of BEIF funds, the Agency  implemented  project
management  enhancements  in  2005 to expedite construction completion. In addition,  EPA
finalized a  fiscal policy in FY 2007 that provides clear direction for expediting completion of
older projects and  disbursement of funds.   These  reforms  have resulted in consistent and
dramatic reductions in the program's unliquidated balances and improved project completion
rates. The  program has reduced the unliquidated BEIF balance by more than  60 percent,  from
approximately $300 million  in 2007 to the current balance of $118.6 million, as of November
2010.

In FY 2012, the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program will continue to fund high
priority  water and wastewater infrastructure projects.  The projects  have been evaluated and
ranked using a risk-based  prioritization system,  which enables the program to  direct BEIF
funding to  projects  that demonstrate human  health benefits, cost-effectiveness,  institutional
capacity  and sustainability.  All program  funding will be invested in projects that, whether
located  in  the  United  States  or Mexico,  demonstrate  a  positive  public  health  and/or
environmental benefit to the United States.  The demonstration of a U.S.-side benefit is one of the
fundamental eligibility criteria for projects seeking program assistance.

The U.S.-Mexico Border Program grants  award system, which separates planning and design
awards from the construction award funds, has  created a portfolio of construction-ready projects
that are  awaiting  funding.  It  is anticipated  that most  of the  requested  FY 2012  funding
(approximately 80 percent)  will be  awarded to the NADB to fund these  construction-ready
projects.  A significantly smaller portion (approximately 20 percent) will be awarded to the
Border Environmental Cooperation  Commission  (BECC)  for planning and design  of new
projects, with the purpose of continuing to build and thus maintain a portfolio of projects that are
ready for construction.  Final decisions on use of FY 2012 funding will be based on balancing
the  construction needs of fully designed projects  with the planning and the design needs of
prioritized projects.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome


Measure
(4pg) Loading of
biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD)
removed (million
pounds/year) from the
U.S. -Mexico border
area since 2003 .
FY 2010
Target






FY 2010
Actual






FY2011
CR
Target



108.2


FY 2012
Target



108.8


Units


IVfillinn
Pounds/Year


Measure
Type
Measure
FY 2010
Target
FY 2010
Actual
FY2011
CR
Target
FY 2012
Target
Units
                                          882

-------
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(xb2) Number of
additional homes
provided safe drinking
water in the U.S.-
Mexico border area
that lacked access to
safe drinking water in
2003.
FY 2010
Target



28,434



FY 2010
Actual



52,130



FY2011
CR
Target



54,130



FY 2012
Target



100
(Annual)



Units



Homes



Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(xb3) Number of
additional homes
provided adequate
wastewater sanitation
in the U.S. -Mexico
border area that lacked
access to wastewater
sanitation in 2003 .
FY 2010
Target



246,175



FY 2010
Actual



254,125



FY2011
CR
Target



461,125



FY 2012
Target



1,282
(Annual)



Units



Homes



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$7,000.0) This reduces FY 2010 directed funding for Mexico Border. The requested
       level of funding will allow EPA to fund a portion of fully planned and designed projects
       for construction, while continuing efforts to provide access to safe drinking water and
       sanitary systems for underserved communities in the region.

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;" Public Law 111-18, Department of Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act 2010.
                                         883

-------
                                                               Targeted Airshed Grants
                                   Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted

$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0

FY2010
Actuals

$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0

FY2011
Annualized
CR

$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0

FY2012
Pres Budget

$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

($20,000.0)
($20,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

Part of this program consists of grants to two California air  districts: the San  Joaquin Air
Pollution Control District and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.  The air districts
use these funds to continue emission reduction activities in the transportation,  agriculture and
ports sectors. These grants are matched by the districts on a one-to-one basis.

The program has also supported  $10  million in competitive grants to reduce  air pollution in
nonattainment areas that are ranked as the top five most polluted areas relative to annual ozone
or PM2.5 National  Ambient Air Quality Standards  (NAAQS).  EPA determines those areas—
which  are primarily  in California—based on  the most recent  design values calculated  from
validated air quality data.

EPA has awarded $10 million in FY 2010 funds to the two California Air Quality Districts with
the remaining funds  to be awarded  shortly.  The FY 2010 competitive funds can be used for
emission reduction projects in the transportation, agriculture  and ports sectors.  The Agency
anticipates that many of the projects will be for diesel emission reduction activities, but other
types of projects are also eligible for funds.

The San Joaquin and South  Coast Air Quality Management Districts received earmarked funding
in FY  2009 for  diesel emission reduction  activities.  There were  no competitive funds in FY
2009.  The SCAQMD funds were used for vehicle replacement at ports; the San Joaquin projects
focused on diesel agricultural pumps and off-road vehicles.

The FY 2010  funds are available for emission  reduction activities  deemed necessary for
compliance with NAAQS and included in State Implementation Plans submitted to EPA.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

There is no request for this program in FY 2012.
                                          884

-------
Performance Targets:

Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$20,000.0) The FY 2012 President's Budget does not continue funding  for these
       earmarked grants.

Statutory Authority:

P-L. 111-88.
                                         885

-------
Program Area: Categorical Grants
              886

-------
                                                   Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
                                                          Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                      Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted

$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0

FY2010
Actuals

$10,194.2
$10,194.2
0.0

FY2011
Annualized
CR

$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0

FY2012
Pres Budget

$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA awards grants to eligible coastal and Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to improve
water quality monitoring at beaches and to notify the public of beach advisories 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 reducing risk to the public of
waterborne disease related to the use of recreational water.

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.8

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Eligible states, territories, tribes and localities will receive BEACH Act grants to: (1) administer
the grant program;  (2)  implement monitoring and notification programs consistent with EPA
guidance; and (3) submit monitoring and advisory data to EPA for production of an annual report
in a timely manner.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(ss2) Percent of days of
beach season that
coastal and Great
Lakes beaches
monitored by State
FY 2010
Target
95
FY 2010
Actual
95
FY2011
CR
Target
95
FY 2012
Target
95
Units
Percent
Days/Season
' See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ and https: //www.cfda. go v/ for more information.
                                           887

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
beach safety programs
are open and safe for
swimming.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):




   •  No change in program funding.




Statutory Authority:




Clean Water Act (CWA); Beach Act of 2000.

-------
                                                         Categorical Grant: Brownfields
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                 Objective(s): Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$56,100.7
$56,100.7
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The  Brownfields program is  designed to help states, tribes,  local communities,  and other
stakeholders in environmental  revitalization and economic redevelopment to work together to
plan, inventory, assess, safely cleanup, and reuse brownfields. 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.

As  authorized  under  Section   128(a)  of  the Comprehensive   Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), categorical grants are provided to states and tribes
for  their Brownfields  response  programs.  State  and  tribal response  programs  address
contaminated brownfields sites that do not require federal action, but need cleanup  before the
sites are considered  for reuse.  States and tribes may  use grant funding provided  under this
program in the  following ways:  1) developing a  public record; 2) creating an inventory of
brownfields sites; 3) developing oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms and
resources; 4) developing mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for
public  participation;  5)  developing mechanisms for  approval  of a cleanup  plan and that
verification and certification  cleanup efforts are complete; 6) capitalizing a Revolving Loan Fund
for brownfields-related work; 7) purchasing environmental insurance; and 8) conducting site-
specific related activities, such as assessments and cleanups at brownfields sites.9

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY  2012 EPA will continue to establish and enhance eligible response programs of states,
U.S. territories, and tribes under CERCLA 128(a).  EPA also will  continue to issue grants to
states and tribes for their response programs to cleanup brownfields sites before reuse. Building
response program capacity of states and tribes to address the assessment and cleanup of sites
 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/browrifields/state tribal/index.html.
                                           889

-------
with actual or perceived contamination will increase the number of acres ready for reuse,  an
important first step in revitalizing communities across the country.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program project also  supports performance results  in STAG:  Brownfields
Projects and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  No change in program funding.

Statutory Authority:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability  Act, as amended by the
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. -
Section  128.
                                         890

-------
                                         Categorical Grant:  Environmental Information
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants

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)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$10,618.9
$10,618.9
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$10,200.0
$10,200.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$200.0
$200.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

EPA  and  state,  tribal  and  territorial  partners  reap  tremendous data  management  and
environmental benefits  from  the  National Environmental  Information Exchange Network
(Network, EN). The EN is a standards-based, secure information partnership with states, tribes
and other entities that  facilitates  and streamlines  electronic  reporting,  sharing,  integration,
analysis and use of environmental data from many different sources. Success stories include the
Water  Quality Exchange (WQX), which has dramatically  expanded  the  proportion of the
nation's surface waters for which pollution control  officials  have near-real-time water quality
data. Thirty-two states are now using the EN to submit water quality data on 113,000 monitoring
stations.  While starting primarily with states, partnerships  have expanded to include a broader
range of participants. Examples include sharing data about the Chesapeake Bay among all levels
of participating governments and a central tribal information hub hosted by the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission for water quality reporting.

EN grants provide funding  to states,  territories, federally-recognized Indian tribes  and tribal
consortia to  support their participation in the EN.  These grants help EN partners acquire and
develop the  hardware and software needed to connect to the  EN; and to use the EN  to collect,
report and access the data they need with greater efficiency; and to integrate environmental  data
across programs in ways previously not possible.  By supporting the exchange and integration of
data to meet the partners'  program  and business needs, the EN facilitates sound environmental
and health decision-making while enhancing public access to environmental data.

Development of the EN has  largely been funded through these  grants. During FY 2010, all 50
states, the District of Columbia, nearly 80 tribes and 3 territories used the Exchange Network to
submit data for at least one major regulatory program or major national data system.  In addition,
EPA is in the process of developing a system to manage industry reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions data and  exchanging this information with  its trading partners.  EN partners have
                                          891

-------
submitted other non-regulatory data to EPA and have shared data with each other through the
EN.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

More work is needed to  realize fully the potential environmental and health benefits that the
EN's data management  capabilities can yield, including protecting vulnerable populations,
enhancing scientific analysis and strengthening the collaborative  network of federal, state and
local  partners.  Therefore, in FY 2012, the EN Grants Program will emphasize  activities to
achieve the following program goals:

   •   Support the  development and exchange of regulatory and non-regulatory data  flows.
       Because all 50 states have operational connections to the EN (nodes), the major emphasis
       of the grant program has shifted toward supporting partners as they expand the number of
       regulatory data flows while prioritizing those data flows which are more complicated and
       therefore slower to be completed by states.  These flows include data reported  to the
       Integrated Compliance  Information System, the Resource Conservation  and  Recovery
       information  system  and the data management  system for the Underground Injection
       Control Program.

   •   Grow the EN by developing the necessary capacity and  infrastructure  for tribes and
       territories.  This  endeavor  also  includes the  development of new tools for Network
       partners that make exchanging data faster and easier. Some of these tools also help states
       which, despite the  Exchange Network grant  program,  face  resource  cuts in their
       information technology staffing budgets.  These tools,  such as the Network Web Service
       Tool,  can help the states bridge those  funding gaps by lowering Network participation
       costs,  complexity and FTE requirements.

   •   Expand data sharing among partners.  EPA plans to solicit applications that propose to
       expand existing data exchanges for Agency priorities  such as co-managed water  bodies
       (e.g, Great Lakes,  large watersheds) and applications that propose to develop data  access
       services that allow EN partners and the public  to integrate, link and analyze information
       from sources across the Network.

   •   Support multi-partner projects to plan, mentor and train EN partners and develop and
       exchange data.  These projects help encourage broader participation of existing and new
       partners.  They  also support innovation  and  improve the quality of individual grant
       products.  Such innovation and improved quality in turn make it easier to promote their
       re-use among a larger  cross-section of Network partners, making  one of the Network's
       operating principles, "build one, use many" a reality.

   •   Focus on the sharing and integration of geographic/geospatial information  and geospatial
       data standards with environmental information, as the  legacy methods for reporting data
       are replaced by the  Network.  This focus  will represent  a major  step forward toward
       "mainstreaming" geographic information systems (GIS) into the Network data exchanges
       and will greatly enhance the power and functionality of the Network.
                                          892

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this  program supports multiple strategic objectives.   Currently,  there are no
performance measures for this specific Program Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •  (+$200.0)  This reflects  an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
      associated with state and tribal program implementation.
Statutory Authority

Exchange Network Grant Program has been provided by the annual appropriations for EPA: 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 2006 (Public Law 109-54), FY 2007 (Public Law 110-5),
FY 2008 (Public Law 110-161), FY 2009 (Public Law 111-8),  and FY 2010 (Public Law 111-
88).
                                         893

-------
                               Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                 Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$103,161.8
$103,161.8
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$103,412.0
$103,412.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$66.0
$66.0
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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The EPA-state partnership  has been the basis for effective implementation of the RCRA program
over the  years.  In light  of recent state  fiscal  constraints,  EPA continues  to  seek improved
efficiencies in state and regional operations. EPA is also working to better assess state workload
needs and the extent to which states currently generate revenue from user charges to  support
state hazardous waste programs.

In FY 2012, EPA will  continue to work with  states  toward the calendar year 2020  goal of
constructing final remedies at 95 percent of all facilities. As part of overall efforts toward that
goal, EPA and states aim to 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. Because states are the primary implementers of RCRA, EPA's ability  to meet
these goals,  as well as goals for issuing permits, permit renewals, and other approved controls,
may be impacted by state fiscal constraints.
                                          894

-------
In FY 2012, the following activities will be accomplished by states and by EPA for Iowa and
Alaska,  using RCRA Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance funds to increase the number of
RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits, permit  renewals, or other approved
control:

   •  Issue operating and post-closure permits, or use appropriate  enforcement mechanisms to
      address environmental risk at inactive land-based facilities;

   •  Approve  closure plans  for interim  status  treatment and storage facilities that are not
      seeking permits to operate and work with the facilities to clean-close those units;

   •  Issue permit renewals for hazardous waste management facilities to keep permit controls
      up to date;

   •  Issue permit modifications, as needed;

   •  Operate  comprehensive compliance monitoring and enforcement actions related to the
      RCRA hazardous waste program; and

   •  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 proposed goals for the RCRA
      Corrective Action program.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports performance results in the RCRA Corrective Action program
project and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11. Currently there are no
direct performance  measures for this funding.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$66.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes with the implementation of
      state and tribal programs.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal  Act, as  amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Section 3011, and the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276; 112
Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
                                          895

-------
                                                                      Categorical Grant: Lead
                                                               Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                           Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                     (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$14,564.0
$14,564.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$15,162.6
$15,162.6
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$14,564.0
$14,564.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$14,855.0
$14,855.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$291.0
$291.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

Recent data  show  significant progress in the  continuing efforts to eliminate  childhood  lead
poisoning as a  public health concern.   EPA has historically  measured progress by  tracking
reductions in the number of children with elevated blood  lead levels of 10 micrograms  per
deciliter or higher.   Data released in  2010 by the Centers for Disease Control  and Prevention
indicate that the incidence of childhood  lead poisoning  has declined  from approximately 1.6
percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children  in 2006.10  These results show that the
federal government is making greater than expected progress and well on track toward achieving
its goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern, at those blood levels,
by 2010."
11
Results of recent studies indicate adverse health effects to children at blood levels lower than the
                                                   1 9
previously recognized 10 micrograms per deciliter.  In response to this new information and the
fact that the potential for exposure posed by lead-based paint still  exists in approximately 38
million homes built before 1978,13 EPA now is targeting reductions in the number of children
with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher.  EPA's Lead program also tracks
the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income  children and non-low-income children.
10 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2009. Children: Key National Indicators of Weil-Being, 2009.
http: //www. childstats. go v/americaschildren/phenviro 3. asp.
11 "President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children"
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/fedstrategy2000.pdf
12 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006)
http://cfpub. epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay. cfm?deid=l 58823
4 Jacobs, D.E.; Clickner, R.P.; Zhou, J. Y.; Viet, S.M.; Marker, D.A.; Rogers, J.W.; Zeldin, B.C.; Broene, P.; and Friedman, W.
(2002). The prevalence of lead-based paint hazard in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(10): A599-A606
Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children - how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16): 1515-1516
http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.nejm.20030417.pdf
Lanphear BP, Homung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: an
international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7): 894-899
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?doi=10.1289/ehp.7688
                                               896

-------
The program uses these performance measures to track progress toward eliminating childhood
lead poisoning in vulnerable populations.

The Lead Categorical  Grant Program contributes to the lead  program's goals by providing
support to authorized state  and tribal  programs that administer training  and certification
programs for lead professionals and renovation contractors. The program also conducts outreach
activities to educate populations deemed most at risk of exposure to lead from lead-based paint,
dust, and soil.

See http://www.epa.gov/lead for more information.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the program will continue providing assistance to states, territories, the District of
Columbia, and tribes to develop and implement authorized programs for the lead-based  paint
abatement program  to  operate in lieu of the federal program. Additionally, the program will
provide support to those entities to develop and implement authorized Renovation, Repair and
Painting (RRP) Programs.  EPA implements these programs in all areas of the country that are
not authorized to do so. Activities conducted as part of this program include accrediting training
programs, certifying individuals and firms, and providing education and compliance assistance to
those subject to the abatement and RRP regulations and the general public.

Thirty-nine states and  territories, three  tribes, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are
authorized to run the lead-based paint abatement program.  By comparison, as of January 2010,
10 states  had become authorized to administer the RRP program. In FY 2012,  the  Lead
Categorical Grant Program will provide assistance to existing authorized state and tribal  Lead
programs. In addition, it will provide assistance, using a targeted approach, to states and tribes
interested in becoming authorized to run the RRP Program.

As of January 19, 2011, EPA has accredited 472 renovation training providers and has certified
more than 75,500 renovation firms.  The Agency estimates that it should be possible to have
certified 120,000 renovation firms by the end of FY 2012.

EPA recognizes that additional attention  and assistance must be given to vulnerable populations,
including those with rates of lead poisoning in excess of the national average, and those living in
areas where potential high rates of lead  poisoning may exist and where frequent screening has
not yet occurred. To address this issue, EPA's goal is to award targeted grants 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 to  reduce
childhood lead poisoning.

Performance Targets:

Work under  this  program also  supports performance results that are listed in EPM  Toxic
Substances:   Lead Risk Reduction Program and can be found  in the Performance Four Year
Array in Tab 11.
                                           897

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$291.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
       associated with state and tribal program implementation.

Statutory Authority:

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. - Section 404(g).
                                          898

-------
                                        Categorical Grant: Local Govt Climate Change
                                                       Program Area: Categorical Grants
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                   Objective(s): Address Climate Change

                                (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY 2010
Enacted

$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0

FY 2010
Actuals

$9,500.0
$9,500.0
0.0

FY 2011
Annualized
CR

$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0

FY 2012
Pres Budget

$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted

($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The FY 2010 Budget included $10 million for EPA's Air and Radiation program to initiate a
competitive grant program to assist local communities in establishing and implementing their
own climate change initiatives. The goal of this program is to implement programs, projects, and
approaches that demonstrate documentable reductions in GHGs  and are replicable  elsewhere.
While the Agency anticipates this program will lead to emission reductions, the Agency will rely
on existing EPA partnership programs to achieve future greenhouse gas reductions.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

There is no request for this program in FY 2012.

Performance Targets:

Currently,  there are no performance measures for this specific program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$10,000.0) This program is not continued in FY 2012.

Statutory  Authority:

P.L. 111-8 (H.R.  1105),  123 STAT. 524; P.L. 111-88.
                                         899

-------
                                  Categorical Grant: Multi-Media Tribal Implementation
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
         Objective(s): Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted

$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY2010
Actuals

$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY2011
Annualized
CR

$0.0
$0.0
0.0

FY2012
Pres Budget

$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$20,000.0
$20,000.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

As stated in the 1984 EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations, "In keeping with the principle of Indian self-government, the Agency will view
tribal governments as the appropriate non-federal parties for making decisions and carrying out
program responsibilities affecting Indian reservations, their environments,  and the  health and
welfare of the reservation populace." As tribal capacity increases and as tribes' environmental
programs  become increasingly  sophisticated, EPA  continues  to  invest  and support  tribal
government efforts to carry out new program delegations and responsibilities.

EPA is requesting a new multi-media implementation grant program for  tribes in  FY 2012.
Under  federal environmental statutes, EPA has responsibility for protecting human  health and
the  environment  in  Indian  country and  has worked  with tribes  to establish the  internal
infrastructure and capacity to address environmental priorities. This program fills the void where
there was no consolidated,  flexible program available to support tribal  implementation of
environmental programs. Tribes  overall suffer disproportionately and lag significantly behind
state and federal programs in achieving environmental and health protection, including the lack
of access to safe drinking water, sanitation, solid waste management systems, and safeguards that
result  from other basic federal  environmental  programs. At the same  time,  many  tribal
governments have made tremendous progress in the last 20 years, and many tribes throughout
the nation manage increasingly complex environmental programs. This program facilitates self-
government and fulfills EPA's mission to protect human health  and the environment in Indian
country.

The  program  is tailored to  address an individual tribe's most serious environmental needs
through the implementation of environmental programs and projects. These grants build upon the
environmental capacity developed [e.g., under the  Indian General Assistance  Program (GAP)
and other efforts] and include negotiated environmental plans, measures, and results as agreed
upon by tribes and EPA. GAP grants are essential to improving human and environmental health
in Indian country, but given GAP's constraints on implementation, tribes can find it  difficult to
transition  from  establishing  the foundation  of an  environmental  program to  the  actual
implementation of media-specific programs.  This program  transitions  a  tribe into program
                                          900

-------
implementation and ensures that EPA and tribal environmental priorities are addressed to the
fullest extent possible.

This  program advances  the Administrator's  priority  that  EPA programs are consistently
delivered nationwide. It also allows the Agency and tribes to have the flexibility to direct
resources  to tribal  program  implementation  activities that  complement  programs  under
established environmental  statutes (i.e., CWA, CAA, RCRA, etc.) and  specific  projects (e.g.,
climate  change) which are needed to address environmental problems faced by tribes.  Tribes
negotiate specific activities with EPA through program workplans, identify the  measures and
outputs for accountability, and ensure the effectiveness for this federal funding.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

As  tribes'  environmental programs become increasingly sophisticated, additional resources are
needed for implementation of priority actions to protect tribal environments.  EPA is requesting
$20 million to support a multi-media implementation grant program (MMTI), which will assist
federally recognized tribal governments in implementing environmental programs, going beyond
establishing an environmental presence.  In FY 2012, MMTI assistance agreements will fund the
implementation of tribal programs  with  approved plans  and/or tribal laws/codes  aimed at
addressing the most  critical tribal environmental priorities and related to EPA's mission - to
protect both human health and the environment.

Activities submitted must include a plan for measuring outcomes of the funded project.  MMTI
assistance  agreements, while not covering capacity building activities, directly link MMTI
activities to  results  and successes achieved through the GAP.   Environmental  areas that the
program assists include, but are not limited to:

    •  Indoor air quality
    •  Tribal water quality standards
    •  Voluntary cleanup
    •  Spill  containment and emergency response
    •  Integrated pest management plan
    •  Source water protection
    •  Pollution prevention
    •  Oil pollution prevention

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program  Project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$20,000.0)  This reflects funding for a new grant program that will allow the Agency
      to provide multi-media grants to tribes for implementation of environmental programs
      and projects.
                                          901

-------
Statutory Authority:

Annual Appropriation Acts

Note: EPA is currently seeking authorization of appropriations language to support this program:
"$20,000,000 shall be for grants  to federally recognized Indian tribes  for implementation of
environmental programs and projects as defined by the Administrator that complement existing
Tribal environmental program grants, including interagency agreements."
                                          902

-------
                                          Categorical Grant:  Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                        Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2010
Enacted
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
0.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$194,818.5
$194,818.5
0.0
FY 2011
Annualized
CR
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
0.0
FY 2012
Pres Budget
$164,757.0
$164,757.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY 2010
Enacted
($36,100.0)
($36,100.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

Nonpoint  source  pollution,  caused  by runoff that carries excess nutrients, toxics  and other
contaminants to waterbodies, is the greatest remaining source of surface and groundwater 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 (NFS) management programs by remediating past NFS pollution and preventing
or minimizing new NFS pollution.

Section 319 broadly authorizes  states to use a range of tools to implement their  programs,
including: regulatory  and non-regulatory programs, technical  assistance, financial assistance,
education, training, technology transfers, and demonstration projects.  EPA directs States  to
focus $100 million of 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.14  Implementation of watershed-based plans helps states  achieve
load reductions contained in Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and thereby to  achieve
water quality standards.  Through these implementation projects,  states have remediated nearly
215 waterbodies that were primarily impaired by  NFS pollution so  that they now meet water
quality standards.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The pervasiveness of nonpoint source pollution requires cooperation and involvement from EPA,
other federal agencies, the states, local  governments and  concerned citizens to  address NFS
pollution problems. In FY 2012, EPA will work  closely with and support the many efforts  of
states,  interstate agencies, tribes, local governments  and communities, watershed groups, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other federal  agencies,  and others to develop and
implement their local watershed-based plans and restore surface and groundwaters nationwide.
14See and https://www.cfda.gov for more information.
                                          903

-------
In FY 2012, 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 and relative
significance of pollutants  of concern; cost-effective techniques to  address those  sources;
availability of needed resources, authorities, and community involvement to effect 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.  EPA's website includes
examples of watershed-based plans15 and links to State websites with numerous additional plans.
The Mill Creek, Pennsylvania watershed plan16, for example, provides a detailed 20-page list of
600 best management practices that need to be implemented on  200 farms in the watershed to
restore river water quality, including the precise acreage and linear feet of the practice, modeled
results, and  site-by-site costs.  This planning approach clarifies what all watershed participants'
roles should be to achieve clean water.

EPA  will continue to forge  and strengthen  strategic partnerships with  the  agricultural  and
forestry communities, 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 animal waste, fertilizer,
and sediments have a particularly profound effect on water quality. Therefore, EPA will work
closely with the 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 work closely with a broad set of partners to promote the implementation of
low impact development (LID) practices that  can prevent new development activities  from
harming water  quality  as  well as assist in the restoration  of  waterbodies when previously
developed areas are redeveloped.   Runoff from developed and  developing areas is a leading
source of degradation to urban/suburban streams.   Working with  states,  cities,  developers,
watershed associations, and  others, EPA will continue to spread knowledge and adoption of LID
practices.

EPA will  continue to track  the steady increases in the cumulative dollar value and number of
nonpoint source projects financed with Clean  Water State Revolving Funds  (CWSRF)  loans to
prevent polluted runoff.  EPA will encourage state, tribal, and local governments to use CWSRF
loans to finance nonpoint source projects where appropriate.

Additionally, EPA is currently initiating a project to work with state partners  to  complete a
detailed evaluation of how states are using 319 resources, including implementation of TMDLs


15http://iaspub.epa.gov/watershedplan/examples.do?pageld=52&navld=40
16http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Watershed%20Management/lib/watershedmgmt/nonpoint_source/implementation/mill_creek_
plan.pdf


                                           904

-------
and restoring impaired waters, with the goal of beginning to implement study recommendations
in FY2012.  A key emphasis will be on improving program accountability and ensuring that
States are using cost effective approaches to protect and restore their waters. In FY 2012, EPA
will begin to implement some program reforms, including incentives to states to implement more
effective nonpoint source management programs.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome


Measure
(bpf) Estimated annual
reduction in millions of
pounds of phosphorus
from nonpoint sources
to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded
projects only)
FY 2010
Target



4.5


FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
3/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



4.5


FY 2012
Target



4.5


Units



(Million)


Measure
Type



Outcome


Measure
(bpg) Estimated
additional reduction in
million pounds of
nitrogen from nonpoint
sources to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded
projects only)
FY 2010
Target



8.5


FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
3/2011


FY2011
CR
Target



8.5


FY 2012
Target



8.5


Units



(Million)


Measure
Type





Outcome


Measure
(bph) Estimated
additional reduction in
thousands of tons of
sediment from

nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section
319 funded projects
only)
FY 2010
Target





700


FY 2010
Actual



Data

Avail
3/2011


FY2011
CR
Target





700


FY 2012
Target





700


Units




1 ons
(Thousand)


The program's output measures are to reduce the amount of runoff of phosphorus, nitrogen, and
sediment through Section 319 funded projects, which usually take several years to implement.
                                         905

-------
EPA expects that funding reductions in FY 2012 may result - in FY 2013 and beyond - in a
decrease in the program's ability to reduce contaminated runoff.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$36,100.0)  This reduction will  decrease  funding for nonpoint  source  programs,
       including implementation of nonpoint  source  projects  and  statewide nonpoint source
       protection activities.

Statutory Authority:

Clean Water Act Section 319
                                         906

-------
                                              Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws
                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$18,494.3
$18,494.3
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$19,085.0
$19,085.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$374.0
$374.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Pesticides Enforcement grants program ensures pesticide product and user compliance with
provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  Areas of focus
include inspections relating to reducing chemical risks and protecting vulnerable populations.
Additionally, 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.17 The program also sponsors training for state/tribal
inspectors through the Pesticide Inspector Residential  Training  Program (PIRT) and for
state/tribal managers through the Pesticide Regulatory Education Program (PREP).

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue to award state and tribal pesticides 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.  Enforcement and pesticides program grant
guidance is  issued to focus regional, state and tribal efforts on the  highest priorities.  EPA's
support to state and  tribal pesticide programs will emphasize reducing  chemical risks by:
conducting  targeted  inspections of  pesticide use  involving  six  acutely  toxic  agricultural
pesticides with the highest incident rates; implementing container/containment requirements; and
conducting targeted pesticide  producer establishment inspections of facilities such as contract
manufacturers or fumigant producers.  These  grants also will  help states and tribes  to protect
vulnerable  populations  by conducting compliance (inspection) and  enforcement  activities,
including those  involving worker protection at pesticide  producing  establishments located in
environmental justice areas.   States  will  continue  inspecting facilities  for compliance  with
pesticide requirements.
 ' For additional information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html.
                                           907

-------
Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the strategic objective to Ensure Chemical Safety.  Currently,
there are no performance measures for this specific program project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$374.0) This change reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation
       costs associated with state and tribal program implementation.

Statutory Authority:

FIFRA.
                                          908

-------
                                    Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
                                                            Program Area: Categorical Grants
                               Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                         Objective(s): Ensure Chemical Safety

                                    (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$13,520.0
$13,520.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$13,195.4
$13,195.4
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$13,520.0
$13,520.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$13,140.0
$13,140.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($380.0)
($380.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

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.18 The Agency  provides
grants  to  states, tribes and other partners, including universities, non-profit organizations, other
federal agencies, pesticide users, environmental groups, and other entities, as necessary, to assist
in strengthening and implementing EPA's  pesticide programs. The program focuses  on areas
such as worker safety activities (including worker protection and certification and training),
protection of endangered species,  protection of water resources from pesticides, and promotion
of environmental  stewardship and Integrated Pest Management related activities.  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 at the local level.  EPA provides 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. Stakeholders at the local level, including
states and tribes, provide essential support  in implementing pesticides programs.  The Agency
engages  stakeholders,  including states in  the regulatory process, and  considers their input
regarding effectiveness and soundness of regulatory decisions.  The states and tribes also 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 more effective regulatory partners.
18 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of Registration
(7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/laws.htm

2 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/ESA35/ESA35DaleQA.html.
                                             909

-------
FY 2012 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.  Grants fund
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 continue to
be a major focus. See http://www.epa.gov/oppfead 1/safetv/applicators/applicators.htm for more
information.

Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP)

The ESPP  protects  federally  listed threatened  or  endangered 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 will not likely
jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered and threatened, or destroy or
adversely modify habitat designated as critical to  those species' survival.  EPA  will provide
grants to states, tribes and other partners, as described above, 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. These activities support
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, tribes, and  other partners to investigate  and respond to water
resource contamination by pesticides.  Stakeholders and partners, including states and tribes, are
expected to evaluate local pesticides uses that have the potential to contaminate water resources,
and take steps to prevent or reduce contamination  where pesticide  concentrations approach or
exceed levels of concern.

EPA's  Cooperative  Agreements  for  Pesticides  typically include  the   following three-tier
approach:

    1.  Evaluate: pesticides that may have the potential to threaten water quality locally;
    2.  Manage: If the evaluation identifies that the pesticide may be found at levels locally that
       pose water  quality  concerns, take actions to manage those pesticides and  mitigate
       exposure;  and
                                           910

-------
   3.  Demonstrate Progress:  For pesticides that are actively managed, examine available data
       and trends to demonstrate improvement in water quality.

Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP):

The PESP forms partnerships between EPA and pesticide user groups to reduce pesticide use and
risk through development and  implementation of pollution prevention strategies and Integrated
Pest Management (TPM) techniques. PESP currently has almost 200 partners and supporters.
They range 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 pest control methods.   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/pesp/.

Tribal

The  Agency will support tribal  activities  implementing  pesticide programs through grants.
Tribal program outreach activities support tribal capacity to protect human health by  reducing
risk from pesticides in Indian  country.  This task is challenging given that aspects of Native
Americans'  lifestyles,  such  as  subsistence  fishing  or   consumption of  plants, that  were
specifically grown as food and possibly exposed to pesticides not  intended for food use, may
increase  exposure to  some  chemicals or create  unique  chemical exposure  scenarios.   For
additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadI/tribes/.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the following programs through  grants to  states, tribes,
partners,  and supporters:  Certification and Training/Worker Protection,  Endangered Species
Protection Program (ESPP) Field  Activities, Pesticides in Water, Tribal Program,  and Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program.

Currently, there are no specific  performance measures for this program.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$280.0) This decrease reflects the reduction in outreach and education activities.

   •   (-$100.0) This decrease reflects the reduction to funding for emerging issues.

Statutory Authority:
                                          911

-------
Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIRA), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);  Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic  Act  (FFDCA); Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; Endangered Species Act (ESA).
                                        912

-------
                                          Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                        Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$229,264.0
$229,264.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$225,941.1
$225,941.1
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$229,264.0
$229,264.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$250,264.0
$250,264.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$21,000.0
$21,000.0
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 groundwater pollution from point and nonpoint sources.  Prevention
and control activities supported through these grants include providing permits, monitoring and
assessment,  water  quality  standards development,  Total  Maximum Daily  Load  (TMDL)
development, surveillance and  enforcement, water quality  planning, advice and assistance to
local agencies, training, and public information.  Section 106 grants also may be used to provide
"in-kind" support through an EPA contract if requested by a state or tribe.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

The Section 106 Grant Program supports prevention and control measures that improve water
quality.  In FY 2012, EPA will designate the requested additional $21 million in Section 106
investment funding to strengthen the base state, interstate and tribal programs.   States are
working  to achieve the goals of the CWA while facing decreasing funding and relying more on
federal support

The additional funding support to state programs will allow them to focus additional resources to
continue  development of water quality standards, identification of impaired waters, development
of TMDLs for use in permit actions, and development of more complex and challenging broad
scale Water Quality Standards (WQS) and TMDLs for nutrients and mercury. The funding also
will allow states to target activities for  reduction and control of stormwater, to expand green
infrastructure management approaches, and to provide support to initiatives,  such as the Clean
Water Act Action Plan.

In FY 2012, EPA  will continue to work with states, interstate agencies, and tribes to foster a
"watershed approach" as the guiding principle  of their clean water programs.  This  approach
conducts and assesses monitoring  efforts, develops TMDLs,  and writes  National  Pollution
                                           913

-------
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits with the goal of sustaining and improving the
entire watershed.

The CWA Section 106 tribal program increase will fund an increased number of tribes to protect
water quality, retain traditional uses of existing high quality waters on tribal lands, and support
the expansion of tribal monitoring programs. As of the end of FY 2010, 162 of the 254 tribes
had completed monitoring strategies and 101 tribes were providing data electronically.

Monitoring and Assessment:

EPA's goal is to achieve greater integration of federal, regional, state, and local level monitoring
efforts to connect monitoring and assessment activities across geographic  scales and to serve
multiple CWA programs in a cost-efficient and effective manner.  Continued funding will ensure
that scientifically defensible monitoring data are available to address issues and problems at each
of these scales.

In FY 2012,  EPA will continue working with  states and tribes to enhance their water quality
monitoring programs.  Monitoring Initiative funds for states and tribes will continue to support
the statistically-valid National  Aquatic Resource  Surveys  of national  and  regional  water
conditions and to support implementation of state and tribal monitoring strategies. In FY 2012,
$18.5 million will be designated for states  and tribes under the Initiative: $8.5  million for
monitoring as part of statistically-valid reports  on national water condition, and $10 million to
implement monitoring strategies.

Through the Monitoring and Assessment Partnership, EPA will work with states to develop and
apply innovative and  efficient monitoring tools and techniques to optimize availability of high
quality data to support CWA program needs and to expand the use of monitoring data and geo-
spatial tools for water resource protection to set priorities  and evaluate effectiveness of water
protection.  This will allow EPA, states,  and tribes to continue to report on the condition of the
nation's waters, and make  significant progress toward  assessing  trends in water condition in a
scientifically-defensible manner.

As part  of the National  Surveys,  EPA, states,  and tribes will collaborate to conduct  field
sampling for the  second National Lakes Assessment  to determine  changes since  2007.  This
second lakes  survey will be conducted in FY 2012 and the report will be completed in FY 2014.
A report of the second National  Streams Assessment and a Baseline Condition of Rivers and a
fifth report on National Coastal Condition will  be issued in FY 2012.  Analytical work for the
National Wetland Condition Assessment will take place during FY 2012 for a report to be issued
in FY 2013.  A portion of the FY 2012 CWA  Section 106 Monitoring Initiative funds will  be
allocated for sampling for the second National Rivers and Streams Assessment.

Review and Update Water Quality Standards:

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 85 percent of state and territorial submissions
will be  approvable in FY  2012.   EPA also encourages states to continually review  and update
                                           914

-------
water quality criteria in their standards to reflect the latest scientific information from EPA and
other sources. EPA's goal for FY 2012 is that 64.3 percent of states will have updated  their
standards to reflect the latest scientific information in the past three years.  Finally, EPA will
continue to work with tribes that want to establish water quality standards.

Develop Total Maximum Daily Loads:

In impaired watersheds,  EPA policy guides states to develop TMDLs, critical tools for meeting
water restoration goals,  within 8 to 13 years from the time the impairment is identified  on a
303(d) list.  While the pace of TMDL completion has been affected  as states have begun to
tackle more challenging TMDLs, such as broad-scale mercury and nutrient TMDLs, they are still
encouraged by EPA to develop TMDLs as expeditiously as practicable.  Also, EPA will continue
to work with states to facilitate accurate, comprehensive, and georeferenced water quality data
made available to the public via the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System
(ATTAINS).  States  and EPA have made significant progress in the development and approval
of TMDLs.  States have developed more than 38 thousand TMDLs; however, over 50 thousand
TMDLs remain to be completed.  TMDLs are an important water quality management tool, as
they identify  applicable  water quality targets  for restoring impaired waters and establish point
and nonpoint source loading limits.  The additional  Section 106  funding will enhance states'
abilities to  address the number of TMDLs that remain to be completed and to  develop TMDLs
that more readily facilitate implementation of point and nonpoint source load reductions.

Providing Permits:

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. EPA is working with states  to structure the permit program to better support
comprehensive protection  of water  quality on a watershed  basis as well  as to address recent
increases in the permit universe  arising  from court orders and environmental  concerns. In FY
2012, EPA will work with states to advance the integrity of the NPDES program and to integrate
program and  enforcement oversight so that the most significant actions affecting water quality
are included in an accountability system and  are addressed. EPA also will work with states to
optimally balance competing priorities, schedules for action items based on the significance of
the action,  and program revisions. States  are encouraged to seek opportunities to incorporate
efficiency tools such  as electronic reporting, watershed permitting, and trading.

As updates are made to the NPDES regulations and program requirements, EPA continues to
work with states  to incorporate new requirements into their regulations.  In one recent example,
new Concentrated Animal Feeding  Operations (CAFOs) regulations were finalized in FY 2008.
In FY 2009, states began issuing permits to comply with these regulatory requirements.  States
also  were required to revise their regulations to adopt the provisions of the new rules by 2009
and revise their statutes by 2010.  In FY 2011, EPA will issue a precedent-setting general permit
for the application of pesticides.  In FY 2012, EPA will work with the 44 authorized states as
they develop their NPDES pesticides general permits and assist in a national effort to educate the
pesticides application industry regarding how to comply with the new permits.
                                          915

-------
Reduction and control of storm water is a key management approach to improving water quality
impacted by wet weather events.  Stormwater discharges are a significant cause of water quality
impairment, especially in urban areas where rain water flows  over impervious cover, carrying
pollutants and erosive flows  into the nation's waterbodies.  EPA is revising the Stormwater
regulations to  better protect the nation's waters from Stormwater discharges.  EPA intends to
propose more  protective standards on discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites.
Through collaboration with states and partner organizations, green infrastructure management
approaches will  be  used to promote prevention, reduction and elimination of water pollution
caused by wet weather events.

Expanding Surveillance and Enforcement:

Despite significant progress reducing water pollution from the largest sources, the country still
faces  serious regulatory  and compliance challenges in attaining the water quality goals of the
CWA. In October 2009, the agency issued its Clean Water Act Action Plan to reduce pollution
sources and achieve more consistent compliance performance.  In implementing this plan, EPA
issued the  Interim Guidance to Strengthen Performance in the NPDES Program on June 22,
2010.  This guidance directs  EPA regional offices and  states to expand NPDES  planning to
include consideration of enforcement and permitting in  an integrated way and to take action
where states have demonstrated long-standing  problems with permit  quality or enforcement
programs.  In addition, EPA is currently evaluating new program approaches to achieve the goals
of the Clean Water Act Action Plan.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue working closely with states
to implement  the Interim  Guidance and to begin implementing  new approaches  as they are
developed.

Working with Tribal Water Pollution Control Programs:

In FY 2012, EPA will work with tribal programs to expand activities that address water quality
and pollution problems on tribal lands. Working with tribal governments, EPA will continue to
monitor the implementation of the Clean  Water Act Section 106 Tribal Guidance, which sets out
a framework  for tribes to establish,  implement and expand their Water  Pollution Control
Programs.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue to work closely with states and tribes with a focus on
collaboration and transparency, both in how EPA allocates funds, and how states and tribes use
Section 106 grants to address water pollution problems.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Output



Measure
(bpk) Number of
TMDLs that are
established by States
and approved by EPA
[State TMDL] on
schedule consistent
with national policy
(cumulative). [A
FY 2010
Target



39,101



FY 2010
Actual



38,749



FY2011
CR
Target



41,235



FY 2012
Target



43,711



Units



TMDLs



                                          916

-------
Measure
Type










Measure
TMDL is a technical
plan for reducing
pollutants in order to
obtain water quality
standards. The terms
"approved" and
"established" refer to
the completion and
approval of the TMDL
itself.]
FY 2010
Target










FY 2010
Actual










FY2011
CR
Target










FY 2012
Target










Units











Measure
Type

Output


Measure
(bpl) Percent of high
priority state NPDES
permits that are issued
in the fiscal year.

FY 2010
Target

95


FY 2010
Actual

142

FY2011
CR
Target

100


FY 2012
Target

100


Units

Percent
Permits


Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(bpn) Percent of major
dischargers in
Significant
Noncompliance (SNC)
at any time during the
fiscal year.

FY 2010
Target


22.5



FY 2010
Actual

Data
Avail
3/2011


FY2011
CR
Target


22.5



FY 2012
Target


22.5



Units


Percent
Dischargers


Measure
Type





Output





Measure
(bpw) Percent of States
and Territories that,
within the preceding 3-
year period, submitted
new or revised water
quality criteria
acceptable to EPA that
reflect new scientific
information from EPA
or sources not
considered in previous
FY 2010
Target





66





FY 2010
Actual





67.9





FY2011
CR
Target





64.3





FY 2012
Target





64.3





Units




Percent
States and
Territories




917

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
standards.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units

Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(L) Number of
waterbody segments
identified by States in
2002 as not attaining
standards, where water
quality standards are
now fully attained
(cumulative).
FY 2010
Target



2,809



FY 2010
Actual



2,909



FY2011
CR
Target



3,073



FY 2012
Target



3,273



Units



Segments



Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
(bpm) Cost per water
segment restored.
FY 2010
Target
771,000
FY 2010
Actual
581,231
FY2011
CR
Target
771,000
FY 2012
Target
721,715
Units
Dollars
A key performance measure for the Water Pollution Control Program is the percentage of water
body segments, identified by states  in  2002 as not  attaining  standards, where water  quality
standards  are  now  attained (SP-10).    State partners  play  a key  role in developing  and
implementing plans and documenting progress made toward reaching the FY 2015 target for this
measure  (3,360 waterbodies).   The Agency  has been successful  in meeting or exceeding
performance targets and continues to target, through an allocation formula, a portion of the
appropriated funds to support statistically-valid surveys of water condition.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$21,000.0) This reflects an  increase to support base programs managed by the states,
       interstates and  tribes, as  well as to provide additional resources to address TMDL,
       nutrient, and wet weather issues.  The additional funding will allow them to focus on the
       continued development  of water quality standards, identification of impaired  waters,
       development of TMDLs for use in permit actions, and development of more complex and
       challenging  Water Quality Standards.  Section 106 funding also will be used to target
       activities for reduction and control of stormwater and to expand green infrastructure
       management approaches.

Statutory Authority:
                                         918

-------
Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1256 et seq. - Section 106.
                                          919

-------
                                                Categorical Grant:  Pollution Prevention
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                             Goal: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
                                                Objective(s): Promote Pollution Prevention

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted

$4,940.0
$4,940.0
0.0

FY2010
Actuals

$4,484.8
$4,484.8
0.0

FY2011
Annualized
CR

$4,940.0
$4,940.0
0.0

FY2012
Pres Budget

$5,039.0
$5,039.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$99.0
$99.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

Pollution  prevention  (P2)  is  one of  EPA's  primary tools for encouraging  environmental
stewardship by the federal government, states,  industry, communities, and individuals.  EPA's
efforts in the P2 area are designed to promote source reduction - eliminating or reducing waste at
the point of generation.  Unlike  recycling or waste treatment,  pollution prevention requires
improvements in production processes and technologies, development and use of safer materials
and products, and implementation of improved  practices. P2 approaches generate results in the
form of reduced use of hazardous materials, energy and water; reduced generation of greenhouse
gases; cost savings in production,  operation and waste management; and increased use of safer
chemicals and products.  These efforts are integral to achieving the Administrator's priorities for
taking action on climate change and reducing chemical risks.

EPA's overall pollution prevention efforts include two major components:  a State and Tribal
Assistance Grant  (STAG) Program, described here,  and a counterpart Environmental  Program
and Management (EPM) program, described under "Pollution Prevention Program." The  STAG
(categorical grant) 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, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/.

The  program  accomplishes its  mission through several  centers  of results, which include
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing;  Green Suppliers Network;  Economy, Energy  and
Environment Initiative;  Green  Chemistry; Design for  the  Environment;  Partnership for
Sustainable Healthcare; Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance, each of which employs a
unique combination of source reduction strategies in generating results to achieve the program's
national  goals and performance  measures.   The P2 Program  contributes to  EPA's Pollution
Prevention Technical Assistance center  of results. Please see the  Pollution Prevention Program
section of Environmental Program and Management Section for a description  of the program's
other components.
                                          920

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the P2 Grant Program will continue supporting states and state entities (i.e., colleges
and universities) and federally-recognized tribes and intertribal consortia in their efforts to help
businesses identify  environmental strategies and solutions for reducing or eliminating pollution
at the source.  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.

P2 Grants are awarded by EPA's regional offices. This enables the Agency to focus resources on
targeted  regional  priorities.   In addition to  supporting traditional P2 technical  assistance
programs, many states  use P2 grants to  assist  businesses by initiating regulatory integration
projects  to  implement  pollution prevention  strategies  in  state  core  media programs,  train
regulatory staff on P2 concepts and best practices, and examine opportunities for incorporating
pollution prevention into permits, inspections, and enforcement.   States also  have established
programs in non-industrial  sectors  such  as  hospitality,  agriculture,  energy,  health,  and
transportation.

The Agency also will continue to support the Pollution Prevention Information Network (PPIN)
Grant Program.  These  grants fund the services of a network of regional centers, collectively
called the Pollution Prevention  Resource Exchange (P2Rx) that provides high quality, peer-
reviewed information to state technical assistance centers. The PPIN grants support work such
as increasing awareness, accessibility, and usability of pollution prevention information through
the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange.

For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/ppis.htm and www.p2rx.org.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results listed in EPM Pollution Prevention
and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab  11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$99.0) This increase is for pollution prevention grants to enable  increased support for
       state and tribal pollution prevention technical assistance activities.

Statutory Authority:

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.  - Sections 6601-6610; Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
                                           921

-------
                            Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
                                                          Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                      Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$107,095. 7
$107,095.7
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$105,700.0
$105,700.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$109,700.0
$109,700.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$4,000.0
$4,000.0
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 protect public health.  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.

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 (SDWA) and support the  states' role in a federal/state partnership of providing safe
drinking water supplies to the public.  States use these grant funds 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; and
    •  Build state capacity.

Some states and tribes do not 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, developmental  grants, and "treatment in a similar
manner as a state" (TAS) grants to Indian tribes to develop the PWSS program on Indian lands
with the goal of tribal  authorities achieving primacy.19
19 For more information see:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pwss.html
                                           922

-------
FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2012, EPA will continue its support of state and tribal efforts to meet existing drinking water
standards through the PWSS Grant Program. This includes working with the states to ensure that
systems can acquire basic implementation capabilities and a full  suite of expertise to provide
public  health protection.   These resources also will be used to assist states and tribes as they
update and strengthen their capacity development strategies so that their programs will continue
to meet the evolving needs of the small water systems.

The Agency is requesting an additional $4 million to support state data management, improve
data quality, and allow the public access to compliance monitoring data not previously  available.
EPA will use the increased funding for associated program support costs or in-kind assistance for
the benefit of states working in concert with the Agency to collect and display all compliance
monitoring  data as part of implementing the Drinking Water Strategy.   This will improve
transparency and efficiency as it will replace the Safe Drinking Water Information System/State
Version  (SDWIS/State)  and  reduce the need  for state  resources to maintain individual
compliance  databases.  EPA will fund its share of the joint effort with Environmental Program
and Management appropriations funding.

The Agency will continue to emphasize that states should use their PWSS funds to ensure that:

    •   Public drinking water systems of all sizes achieve or remain in compliance;
    •   Public drinking water systems of all sizes are meeting newer health-based standards and are
       prepared for recent 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" );
    •   Data quality issues are identified and addressed; and
    •   All systems are having sanitary surveys conducted according to the required schedule.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(aa) Percent of
population served by
CWSs that will receive
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based drinking
water standards
through approaches
including effective
treatment & source
FY 2010
Target




90




FY 2010
Actual




92




FY2011
CR
Target




91




FY 2012
Target




91




Units




Percent
Population




https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=cca066b833c552bdGc9ffDlle576c7f
                                           923

-------
Measure
Type

Measure
water protection.
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target

FY 2012
Target

Units

Measure
Type




Outcome




Measure
(apm) Percent of
community water
systems that meet all
applicable health-based
standards through
approaches that include
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2010
Target




90




FY 2010
Actual




89.6




FY2011
CR
Target




90




FY 2012
Target




90




Units



Pprppnt
A wlv/wllL
Systems




Note: Performance Measures marked with an asterisk in this program project fact sheet were
impacted by the receipt of ARRA funds.   The impact to individual  performance targets  is
detailed in the Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

The performance measures that directly relate to the PWSS grant program are the population and
the number of community water  systems that supply drinking  water meeting all health-based
standards.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

•  (+$4,000.0) This reflects an increase to the PWSS grant program to support management  of
   state and system data.  This will improve transparency and  efficiency as it will replace the
   Safe Drinking Water Information System/State Version (SDWIS/State) and reduce the need
   for state resources to maintain individual compliance databases.  EPA will fund its share  of
   the joint effort with Environmental Program and Management appropriations funding.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A, 42 U.S.C. §300f-300j-9 as added by Public Law 93-523 and the amendments made by
subsequent enactments, Section 1443.
                                         924

-------
                                                              Categorical Grant: Radon
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)



State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears

FY2010
Enacted

$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0

FY2010
Actuals

$8,572.4
$8,572.4
0.0

FY2011
Annualized
CR

$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0

FY2012
Pres Budget

$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted

$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

Title III of the Toxic Substances Control  Act (TSCA) directs EPA to undertake a variety of
activities to address the public health risks posed by exposures to indoor radon. The law directs
EPA to study the health effects of radon, assess exposure levels, set an action level and advise
the public of  steps they can take to reduce  exposure, evaluate mitigation methods, institute
training centers to ensure  a supply of competent radon service  providers, establish radon
contractor proficiency  programs, and  assist  states with  program development through the
administration of a grants program.

Indoor radon is one of the main causes  of lung cancer for non-smokers. EPA's non-regulatory
indoor radon program promotes public action to reduce health risks from indoor radon. EPA
assists states and tribes  through technical  support and the State Indoor Radon Grant Program
(SIRG), which provides categorical grants to  develop, implement, and enhance  programs that
assess  and mitigate radon risks.  Section 306  of the Indoor Radon Abatement Act (TRAA)
authorizes radon grant assistance to states, as defined by TSCA Title III. States and tribes are the
primary implementers of radon testing and risk reduction programs. This voluntary program
promotes partnerships among national  organizations, the private sector, and state, local, and
tribal governmental programs to achieve radon risk reduction.

FY 2012 Activities and  Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, states will:

     •  Continue to encourage 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 built
        with radon resistant new construction, homes mitigated, and schools mitigated or built
        with radon resistant new construction; and
                                          925

-------
     •  Work with EPA to report progress toward performance measures.

The Indoor Air program is not regulatory.  Instead, EPA works toward its goal by promoting
appropriate  risk  reduction  actions  through  voluntary  education and  outreach programs.
Additionally, EPA operates the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE)
in Las Vegas, NV.  R&IE is the only Federal National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) radon laboratory. 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 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.  Grant dollars
are supplemented with technical support to transfer "best practices" from high-achieving states to
promote effective program  implementation across the nation.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program also supports performance results in the Indoor Air: Radon Program under
the Environmental Program Management Tab and can be found in the Performance Four Year Array
in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   No change in program funding.

Statutory Authority:

CAA Amendments of 1990;  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
IRAA, Section 306.
                                          926

-------
                             Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                           Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                 Objective(s): Address Climate Change; Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$226,580.0
$226,580.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$223,152. 7
$223,152.7
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$226,580.0
$226,580.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$305,500.0
$305,500.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$78,920.0
$78,920.0
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 (CAA) 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 CAA 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  implementation of emission
reduction measures,  development and operation  of air quality monitoring networks, and  a
number of other air program areas. Section 106 of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to
fund interstate air pollution transport commissions to develop or carry out plans for designated
air quality control regions.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) provide a blueprint for the programs and activities that states
carry out to achieve and maintain NAAQS.  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.  States currently
are experiencing  an increased  workload resulting from EPA's commitment  to  review  each
NAAQS according to CAA deadlines.  SIP preparation is becoming more complicated due to the
regional nature of air  pollution.  Regional air quality management strategies  require additional
and more  complicated  modeling, refined  emissions inventories, and increased stakeholder
involvement.  States also are addressing new sources of air pollution such as biomass facilities
and agricultural sources, and preparing new and more complicated planning strategies to address
greenhouse gases. In FY 2012, EPA will work with states to correct any deficiencies in their SIP
submissions, and provide technical assistance in implementing their plans for the 8-hour ozone
standard, the PM2.5 standard, the lead standard, and regional haze.
                                          927

-------
In FY 2012, states with approved or delegated permitting programs will continue to implement
new climate  change requirements as part of their permitting programs.  The new climate
requirements  have strained state programs already dealing with budget shortfalls and personnel
retention issues. Continued funding in FY 2012 will assist in avoiding delays in evaluating and
approving permits.

In  October 2006, EPA revised the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS for 24-hour
concentrations.  Due to recent court action, the Agency is reviewing the annual standard, which
was not revised in 2006. Although the final rule did not revise the air monitoring network design
criteria, a  number  of  states voluntarily shifted  monitoring  equipment to new locations  to
investigate possible problem areas with  respect  to the revised NAAQS.   The final  rule also
provided that there be  a better balance of filter-based  and continuous  monitoring methods
employed to ensure more objectives would be served by each agency's  network.

The multi-pollutant monitoring site network (NCore) became operational on January 1,  2011.
This network will serve multiple objectives such as measuring long-term trends of air pollution,
validating models, and providing input to health and atmospheric science studies.  EPA has been
working closely with the states to implement this network of approximately 80 stations across
the nation.  These stations will measure particles,  including filter-based and continuous mass for
PM2.5, perform chemical speciation for  PM2.s; and for the  first time, measure PMio-2.5  mass.
Stations also measure gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (802), nitrous oxides
(NOx),  and  ozone, and record  basic meteorology.  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.   A revised final PM NAAQS is expected by
October 2011. EPA is  consulting with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
on  the appropriate methods and network design that might be needed to measure progress
towards meeting a secondary PM NAAQS designed to protect public welfare.

In October 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the NAAQS for lead by revising the standards
to a level ten times tighter than the previous standards. To ensure protection under the revised
NAAQS,  EPA  has been working with  states to improve  the lead monitoring  network by
requiring monitors to be placed in areas with sources such as industrial facilities that emit one
ton or more of lead per year. This portion of the  lead network, which comprises approximately
100 monitoring stations, began operations on January 1, 2010. EPA also has proposed additional
monitoring of lead at approximately 65 of the 80 NCore multi-pollutant monitoring stations and
near sources that emit over one-half ton of lead, which would include an additional 90 locations.
These two additional monitoring programs are expected to begin operations in January 2012.  A
12-month monitoring study also will be required  at approximately 20  general aviation (non-jet)
airports across  the nation to  determine  the  extent to which violations  of the NAAQS are
occurring at a subset of the most active general aviation airports.

EPA is reconsidering the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would provide for an even more protective
ozone standard - one that is  consistent with the CASAC's advice to the agency.  The Agency's
reconsideration  will lead to  additional ozone nonattainment areas, including many areas that
                                          928

-------
have never been classified as nonattainment, and do not have any established ozone monitoring
stations. In July 2009, EPA proposed new requirements for monitoring of ozone in smaller urban
and non-urban areas as well as extending the length  of the required ozone monitoring season.
Under a reconsidered ozone standard,  the  Agency  does  not anticipate  the new  monitoring
requirements will change, but does anticipate additional areas will be subject to the requirements.
The additional monitoring requirements  may result in an additional 175 new ozone monitoring
stations in FY 2012 and FY 2013.

As part of its  commitment to review  each NAAQS according to the CAA, EPA finalized
revisions to the nitrogen dioxide (NC>2) NAAQS in January 2010. Revisions to the NC>2 NAAQS
also  have  substantial implications for  monitoring,  including the  potential  deployment  of
approximately 170 new monitoring stations in locations not currently being monitored.  EPA is
working  closely with states  on any changes to the NC>2 monitoring  design  and also working
jointly with the states to deploy a few pilot  sites in 2011.  EPA also finalized a revised sulfur
dioxide (802) primary NAAQS  (published June  2, 2010). The monitoring  requirements will
result in  163 new monitors nationwide, which will begin operation by January 2013.  EPA also
plans to propose the 862 and NC>2 secondary NAAQS by July 2011 and finalize the NAAQS by
March 2012, which could also impact monitoring requirements.

EPA also will propose revisions to  the CO NAAQS  in 2011  and finalize revisions by August
2011. Proposed revisions  to the CO NAAQS would result in substantial changes to  the CO
monitoring  network.  Existing CO  stations  could be moved to new  locations or to newly
established near-road monitoring sites required by the NO2 NAAQS and monitoring technology
for all sites will begin transition to high-sensitivity CO units.

This  program  also supports  state and local  characterization of air toxics  problems and
implementation of measures to reduce health risks from air toxics.  The characterization work
includes collection and analysis of emissions data and monitoring of ambient air toxics. In FY
2012, funds for air toxic  ambient monitoring also will support the National  Air  Toxics Trends
Stations (NATTS), consisting of 27  air toxics monitoring sites operated and maintained by state
and local air pollution control agencies across the country, and the associated quality assurance,
data analysis,  and methods support.   Finally,  this program will  support state  efforts  in
implementing Maximum  Available  Control Technology (MACT)  standards for major sources
and regulations to control emissions from area sources.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(M92) 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 2010
Target



33



FY 2010
Actual


Data
Avail
12/2011



FY2011
CR
Target



37



FY 2012
Target



41



Units



Percent



                                          929

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$37,420.0)   This  reflects an  increase to support  expanded core state workload for
       implementing revised and more stringent NAAQS and reducing public exposure to air
       toxics.  The workload of state and local air quality agencies is increasing in several areas.
       State and local agencies will need to develop state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
       for new, more protective  NAAQS, increasing their workload.  State and local  agencies
       already have an existing backlog of needed SIP revisions. State and local agencies also
       will  be considering regional/multi-state  air  quality management strategies.   These
       strategies  require  additional  and  more  complicated  modeling, refined emissions
       inventories, and increased stakeholder involvement.

   •   (+$1,500.0)  Funding is requested to  support the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.  The
       STAG  funds will be  used by  states to  facilitate  the  collection,  review  and  use  of
       greenhouse gas  emissions  data  collected  under EPA's Greenhouse  Gas Reporting
       Program (GGRP), and linked state-based reporting programs.  Specifically, states would
       use  the  STAG  funds:  to develop data management systems to transfer  and receive
       greenhouse gas  data; to work with EPA on adding capabilities to EPA's reporting tools;
       to carry out state-specific review and verification tasks related to reported greenhouse gas
       emissions data, conduct training and outreach to affected facilities and other stakeholders;
       and to promote the use and publication of greenhouse  gas emission  data.

   •   (+$25,000.0)  This reflects an increase to assist in permitting  sources of greenhouse gas
       emissions.  The Agency will  reach out to smaller sources to assist in ways to  reduce
       greenhouse gas emissions.

   •   (+$15,000.0)  This reflects an increase for additional state air monitors required by
       revised NAAQS. EPA has made a commitment to review each of the NAAQS every five
       years, as required by the Clean Air Act. For each revision, states may be required to
       establish new monitoring sites, sometimes using new types of monitoring equipment.

Statutory Authority:

CAA, Sections 103, 105, and 106.
                                          930

-------
                                       Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                      Goal: Enforcing Environmental Laws
                                                 Objective(s): Enforce Environmental Laws

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$5,401.9
$5,401.9
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$5,201.0
$5,201.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$102.0
$102.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Toxics 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-based  paint.
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 of school children, teachers, and staff to asbestos fibers in school buildings. The funds
also support compliance with other Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) asbestos regulations
such as the Asbestos Ban  and Phase-out Rule.  The program 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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will continue to award
state and tribal grants  to assist in the implementation of compliance and enforcement provisions
of TSCA.  These grants  protect the public and the environment from PCBs, asbestos, and lead-
based paint.   States  receiving grants for the PCB  program and for asbestos  programs must
contribute 25 percent of the total cost of the program being funded.  For all three programs,
funds are used to train inspectors, including train-the-trainer;  provide  inspection equipment
including  sampling and personal protective  equipment;  and  fund travel  and salary  costs
associated with conducting inspections. EPA also plans to continue to incorporate technology
such as the use of portable personal computers and inspection software to improve efficiencies of
the inspection process and support state and tribal inspection programs.  For asbestos, there are
approximately 1,000 inspections conducted annually by the states funded under this program; for
PCBs, states conduct approximately 350  inspections a year;  for lead-based paint, there are
approximately 6,000 inspections  a year. EPA's inspection coverage in these states is focused on
oversight,  training, and support.  States provide valuable coverage which is critical to providing
protections to communities against PCB contamination, preventing exposure to asbestos fibers to
                                          931

-------
school age children, teachers, and custodial staff in schools, and protecting the public from lead
paint contamination.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program supports the strategic objective to Ensure Chemical Safety.  Currently,
there are no performance measures for this specific program project.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$102.0) This reflects an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting inflation costs
       associated with state and tribal program implementation.

Statutory Authority:

TSCA.
                                          932

-------
                                     Categorical Grant:  Tribal Air Quality Management
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                          Goal: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
                                                         Objective(s): Improve Air Quality

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$13,300.0
$13,300.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$13,408.0
$13,408.0
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$13,300.0
$13,300.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$13,566.0
$13,566.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$266.0
$266.0
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
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Through CAA Section 103 grants, tribal air
pollution  control agencies or tribes, colleges, universities,  or multi-tribe jurisdictional air
pollution control agencies  and  non-profit organizations may conduct and  promote  research,
investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training related to ambient or
indoor air pollution on tribal lands.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Tribes will assess environmental and public  health conditions  on tribal lands by  developing
emission inventories and, where  appropriate, siting and operating air quality monitors.  Tribes
will continue to develop and implement air pollution control programs for Indian Country, 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, and will work to reduce the number of days in
violation of the Air Quality Index.  This program supports the agency's priority of building
strong tribal partnerships.

Performance Targets:

Work under this program  supports the performance results in Federal Support for Air Quality
Management under Environmental Programs  and Management  Tab  and can be found  in the
Performance Four Year Array in Tab 11.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •  (+$266.0) This reflects an increase to assist tribes in meeting inflation costs associated
      with state and tribal program implementation.
                                          933

-------
Statutory Authority:




CAA, Sections 103 and 105.
                                         934

-------
                                  Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
                                                        Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                     Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
         Objective(s): Strengthen Public Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country

                                 (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$62,875.0
$62,875.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$65,746.2
$65,746.2
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$62,875.0
$62,875.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$71,375.0
$71,375.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$8,500.0
$8,500.0
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/aieo/gap.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 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 grants  build a  strong foundational tribal  environmental
program from which tribes are more prepared to apply and successfully take advantage of the
Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Program proposed in this budget. Some uses of GAP funds
include the following:

    •  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 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012,  GAP grants will  assist tribal governments in building environmental  capacity to
assess environmental conditions, utilize  available  federal and other information, and build
                                          935

-------
environmental programs tailored to their needs.  As part of EPA's tribal investment, EPA is
requesting an additional $8.5 million for GAP to increase the base funding tribes are able to
receive to address a wider set of program responsibilities and decrease staff turnover rates, and
also to fund targeted initiatives  aimed at national and regional concerns. GAP funds are a key
means by which tribes leverage other EPA and federal funding to contribute towards a higher
overall level of environmental and human health protection per dollar invested. Many tribes have
expressed the need to start implementing  high priority  environmental  programs,  and by
increasing GAP  grant  funding,  tribes will develop stronger, more sustainable environmental
programs, allowing more tribes to  advance to program implementation under the new Multi-
Media Tribal Implementation Program proposed in this budget.  These GAP 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.
EPA has successfully implemented its first full budget and performance cycle using a database
system called the Tribal Program Management System (TPMS) to help standardize, centralize,
and integrate regional data, and assign  accountability for data quality. In FY 2012, EPA will
continue working to enhance and integrate the GAP Online workplan development and reporting
system for improved data management and access to grant information.  This enhanced GAP
online electronic system, in conjunction with the updated guidance,  helps emphasize outcome-
based results.

Additionally, building off the environmental planning framework developed in FY 2011, EPA
will further its effort  to develop and clarify  programmatic goals, identifying clear pathways
within each major EPA environmental program area for tribes. Each area (water, air, waste, and
toxics) has a workgroup  to develop helpful guidance for tribes. The guidance will identify key
program development and implementation steps (i.e., steps from needs assessment and program
planning through enforcement and performance measurement), the key requirements  of each
step,  and  the  available  technical  and  funding resources. The final guidance document will
provide a roadmap for tribal program capacity building efforts.
                                          936

-------
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.  EPA  will  continue efforts to  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.pdf for  more information. In
FY 2012, EPA will address the environmental needs of tribes in these times of fiscal uncertainty
by  increasing base  funding  for  the  Tribal   GAP and address a  wider  set  of program
responsibilities and challenges, such as climate change adaptation.

An independent  program evaluation  of  the  GAP  was  conducted to  determine  GAP's
effectiveness in building tribal environmental  capacity.  The reports concluded that GAP is
successful in building a 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)"  at  http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/pdf/
GAPFinalReport.pdf for more information.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Outcome



Measure
(5PQ) Percent of
Tribes implementing
federal regulatory
environmental
programs in Indian
country (cumulative).

FY 2010
Target






FY 2010
Actual





FY2011
CR
Target


18



FY 2012
Target


22



Units


Percent


Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(5PR) Percent of
Tribes conducting EPA
approved
environmental
monitoring and
assessment activities in
Indian country
(cumulative.)
FY 2010
Target







FY 2010
Actual







FY2011
CR
Target



52



FY 2012
Target



54



Units



Percent



                                          937

-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
(5PS) Percent of Tribes
with an environmental
program (cumulative).
FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

FY2011
CR
Target
70
FY 2012
Target
73
Units
Percent
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (+$8,500.0) This reflects an increase in base funding available for GAP grants, which
       will provide tribes with a stronger foundation to build tribal capacity.  It will further
       EPA's  partnership and  collaboration with  tribes  to address a  wider set of program
       responsibilities and challenges. EPA also will fund targeted assistance initiatives focused
       on long-standing and mutually agreed-upon concerns in Indian country.

Statutory Authority:

Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
                                          938

-------
                                Categorical Grant:  Underground Injection Control  (UIC)
                                                          Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                         Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                                      Objective(s): Protect Human Health Water Safe for Use

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$11,323.6
$11,323.6
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$11,109.0
$11,109.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
$218.0
$218.0
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Underground  Injection Control  (UIC) grant 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. 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 the
majority of hazardous wastewater that is land disposed.  In recent years, the use of injection has
expanded to include injection of water for later use, and injection for the long-term storage of
carbon dioxide (CO2) at experimental and demonstration sites.

When wells are properly sited, constructed, and operated, underground injection is an effective
method of managing fluids. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 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 from
improper practices.

EPA provides financial assistance in the form  of  grants to  states and tribes  that have primary
enforcement authority (primacy) to implement and  manage UIC programs. Eligible Indian tribes
who demonstrate intent to achieve primacy also may receive grants for the initial development of
UIC programs and be designated for Treatment As  a State (TAS) 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. EPA also administers the UIC programs for all but two
tribes.20
20 See the following websites for more information:
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=stepl&id=cl307f57fe8bec34fla65660eff495a8&cck=l&au=&ck=
and http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/index.cfm
                                           939

-------
FY 2012 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 to providing clean and safe drinking  water.   The UIC
Program continues to manage or close the approximately 500 thousand shallow injection wells
         91                                    	
(Class V)  to protect our groundwater resources. The requested funding allows states and tribes
to continue administration of existing permitting programs, continue to provide current levels of
program oversight, implementation tools, public outreach, and underground sources of drinking
water protection efforts for injection wells.

Geologic Sequestration (GS) is the process of injecting CO2 captured from an emission source
(e.g.,  a  power plant  or industrial facility) into deep,  subsurface rock formations for long-term
storage.  It is part of a process known as "carbon capture and storage," or CCS.  EPA's UIC
program regulates underground injection of CC>2. In December 2010, a rule was finalized which
established  a  new  class  of  underground  injection  well—Class  VI—with  new  federal
requirements to allow the injection of CC>2 for the purpose of GS. The rule builds on,  and tailors,
existing UIC regulatory components including  siting, construction, operation, monitoring and
testing,  and closure  for injection wells that address the pathways, such as unplugged wells,
through which underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) may be endangered.  In addition
to protecting USDWs, the rule provides a regulatory framework to implement  a consistent
approach to permitting GS projects across the U.S. and supports the development of a potentially
key climate change mitigation technology.

In FY 2012, states  and EPA  (where EPA directly implements) will  continue to carry  out
regulatory functions for all types of wells. For GS wells, states and EPA will continue to process
UIC permit applications for experimental carbon sequestration projects.  EPA also will process
primacy applications and review permits for GS wells.  States and EPA will  process UIC permits
for other nontraditional injection streams  such as desalination brines and  treated waters injected
for storage and recovered at a later time.

Performance Targets:
Measure
Type





Output





Measure
(aps) Percent of
Classes I, II and Class
III salt solution mining
wells that have lost
mechanical integrity
and are returned to
compliance within 180
days thereby reducing
the potential to
endanger underground
sources of drinking
water.
FY 2010
Target











FY 2010
Actual











FY2011
CR
Target











FY 2012
Target





90





Units





Percent
(Class Wells)





  As represented in calendar year 2010 annual inventory.
                                           940

-------
Measure
Type




Output




Measure
(apt) Number of Class
V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells
(MVWDW) and large
capacity cesspools
(LCC) [approximately
23,640 in FY 2010]
that are closed or
permitted (cumulative).
FY 2010
Target









FY 2010
Actual









FY2011
CR
Target









FY 2012
Target




20,840




Units




Wells




The program has developed an annual performance measure to demonstrate the protection of
source water quality.   EPA has developed  annual measures for the UIC program that are
indicators of the effectiveness of the UIC program in preventing contamination of underground
sources of drinking water and protecting public health.  The UIC measures were modified for FY
2012 to cover a wider and more comprehensive universe of existing wells.

FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (+$218.0) This reflects  an increase to assist states and tribes in meeting  inflation costs
       associated with state and tribal program implementation.

Statutory Authority:

SOW A, 42U.S.C. §300j-2, Section 1443.
                                          941

-------
                                         Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
                                                         Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                      Goal: Cleaning Up Our Communities
                                                               Objective(s): Preserve Land

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$2,500.0
$2,500.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$3,184.3
$3,184.3
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$2,500.0
$2,500.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$1,550.0
$1,550.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($950.0)
($950.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) expanded the eligible use of LUST funds to include
certain release prevention/detection  activities, but it did not authorize  LUST  funds  for  all
prevention/detection activities.  Thus, some states still need  STAG money to fund some basic
programmatic functions for Underground Storage Tank (UST) release prevention and detection
programs.  EPA recognizes that the size and diversity of the  regulated community puts state
authorities in a good position to regulate USTs and to set priorities. In furtherance of that goal,
EPA provides funding to states under the authority of Section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act  (SWDA), through Performance Partnership Agreements and  through the UST
categorical  grants for release detection and release prevention activities to encourage owners and
operators to properly operate and maintain their UST systems.  For more information, refer to
http ://www. epa.gov/swerust 1 /overview, htm.

EPA will continue to make grants to states under Section 2007 of the SWDA to support core
program  activities as well as  some EPAct leak prevention activities. Major activities for these
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 tank systems in accordance
with UST regulations.22  EPA also will  assist the  states in implementing the EPAct provisions
such as  conducting on-site  inspections on the three-year cycle, and prohibiting delivery to
noncompliant tank systems.

As of September 30, 2010, there were approximately 597,000 federally-regulated active USTs at
approximately 215,000 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
UST systems are designed and operated in a manner that prevents the tank  systems from leaking
and to detect and clean up those leaks  as soon as possible when leaks occur.  EPA provides
funding  to  states,  regulates these  programs,  develops  guidelines,  and provides  technical
 ' Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/title42ch82-IX12-08.pdf.
                                           942

-------
assistance to develop state capacity to encourage owners and operators to properly operate and
maintain their underground storage tank systems.

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

In FY 2012, the program's focus will continue to be 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.23  Funding from the STAG account is primarily
intended for states' core UST prevention activities (which  are not LUST eligible)  such as,
compliance assistance, state program  approvals, and  technical equipment reviews and approvals.
Specifically, states will fund such activities as:

    •   Approving specific technologies to detect leaks from tank systems;

    •   Ensuring that tank  owners and operators are  complying  with notification and other
       requirements;

    •   Ensuring equipment compatibility;

    •   Conducting inspections;

    •   Implementing operator training;

    •   Prohibiting delivery for non-complying facilities;

    •   Seeking  state program  approval to operate the UST program in lieu of the federal
       program; and

    •   Requiring secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and
       installers.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type

Outcome


Measure
(ST1) Minimize the
number of confirmed
releases at UST
facilities each year.

FY 2010
Target

<9,000


FY 2010
Actual

6,328

FY2011
CR
Target

<8,550


FY 2012
Target

<8,120


Units

UST
Releases

 ' For more information on grant guidelines under EPAct see: http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/epact 05.htm.
                                           943

-------
FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

   •   (-$950.0) This reflects a decrease to align program funding with state need for core UST
       prevention activities, which are not eligible for funding under the Leaking Underground
       Storage Tank appropriation.

Statutory Authority:

Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
and the Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. - Section 2007(f)and  Sections 9001-9014,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Subtitle I.
                                         944

-------
                                      Categorical Grant:  Wetlands Program Development
                                                          Program Area: Categorical Grants
                                                          Goal: Protecting America's Waters
                         Objective(s): Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

                                  (Dollars in Thousands)

State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY2010
Enacted
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY2010
Actuals
$16,236.1
$16,236.1
0.0
FY2011
Annualized
CR
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$15,167.0
$15,167.0
0.0
FY 2012 Pres
Budget v.
FY2010
Enacted
($1,663.0)
($1,663.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:

The Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDG) were initiated in FY 1990 to 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 acreage and condition of wetlands.  Grants are used to
develop new or refine existing state and tribal wetland programs in one or more of the following
areas: (1) monitoring and assessment; (2) voluntary restoration and protection; (3) regulatory
programs including 401 certification; and (4) wetland water quality  standards. States and tribes
develop program elements based on their goals and resources. Grants support development of
state and tribal wetland programs that further the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and improve
water quality in watersheds throughout the country.  Grants are awarded on a competitive basis under
the authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA.  Funding is split among EPA  regional  offices
according to the number of states and territories per regional office. Each regional office is required
by regulation to compete the award of these funds to states, tribes, local  governments,  interstate
agencies, and intertribal consortium.24

FY 2012 Activities and Performance Plan:

Strong state and tribal  wetland programs are an essential complement to  the Federal  CWA
Section 404 regulatory program.  The WPDGs are EPA's primary resource for supporting state
and tribal wetland program  development. Resources in FY 2012 will assist  states and tribes to
develop and enhance the  four core elements of this program  as stated above.   Through these
program elements, states and tribes can begin to assess wetland location and condition, document
stresses or  improvements to wetland condition, provide incentives for wetland restoration and
protection,  and develop regulatory controls to avoid, minimize, and compensate for wetland
impacts.  In 2009, EPA further developed the four elements of a comprehensive wetland program
through the Enhancing State and Tribal  Programs (ESTP) initiative.  Under  this effort, EPA is
continuing  to work more  efficiently with state and  tribes to develop specific aspects for their
programs.25  In addition to  the ESTP program, the EPA Five  Star Restoration Program (FSRP)
 4 See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/tffinanciaL http://water.epa.gov/grantsfunding/wetlands/restore/index. cfm
 5 For further information on the core elements of a state/tribal wetland program and the ESTP initiative, please see
 http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/estp.html.
                                           945

-------
provides  approximately 30 challenge grants, technical support and opportunities for information
exchange  to  enable community-based restoration  projects  while  bringing  together students,
conservation corps, other youth groups, citizen groups,  corporations, landowners and government
agencies  to provide environmental education and training through projects that restore wetlands,
streams, and coasts.

The target of the WPDG is to substantially build or increase the capacity in wetland regulation,
monitoring and assessment,  water quality standards,  and/or  restoration and  protection in
states/tribes.  This includes assistance to states/tribes/local governments to build or refine their
wetlands programs and for the 5-Star Restoration Challenge Grant program.

Performance Targets:

Measure
Type


Output



Measure
(4G) Number of acres
restored and improved,
under the 5 -Star, NEP,
319, and great
waterbody programs
(cumulative).

FY 2010
Target


110,000



FY 2010
Actual


130,000


FY2011
CR
Target


150,000



FY 2012
Target


170,000



Units


Acres


Measure
Type



Outcome



Measure
(4E) 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 2010
Target



No Net
Loss



FY 2010
Actual



No net
loss



FY2011
CR
Target



No Net
Loss



FY 2012
Target



No Net
Loss



Units



Acres



FY 2012 Change from FY 2010 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):

    •   (-$1,663.0) This reflects  a decrease to the Wetland Development Program, which will
       reduce the number  of assistance  agreements from  approximately 95  to about  85
       agreements.

Statutory Authority:

1990  Great Lakes Critical Programs Act;  2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean
Water Act (CWA);  Coastal Wetlands  Planning,  Protection,  and Restoration Act  of 1990;
Estuaries and Clean  Waters  Act of 2000;  North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty;  1978 Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987 GLWQA; 1996 Habitat Agenda;  1997 Canada-U.S.
Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
                                          946

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment

GOAL 1: Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality	949
GOAL 2: Protecting America's Waters	956
GOAL 3: Cleaning Up Our Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development	969
GOAL 4: Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution	975
GOAL 5: Enforcing Environmental Laws	980
NPM: Office of Administration and Resource Management	990
NPM: Office of Environmental Information	991
NPM: Inspector General	992
Verification and Validation	993
                                      947

-------
948

-------
    PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY
    GOAL 1: TAKING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY
    Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality.  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop adaptation strategies to
    address climate change, and protect and improve air quality.
Objective 1 - Address Climate Change: Reduce the threats posed by climate change by reducing GHG emissions and taking actions that help
communities and ecosystems become more resilient to the effects of climate change.	
Sub-
Heading
(1) Mitigate
Greenhouse
Gases
Performance Measures
(PM G02) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the
buildings sector.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
130.2
Actual
143.4
FY 2010
Target
143.0
Actual
Data Avail
12/2011
CR
2011
Target
156.9
FY 2012
Target
168.7
Unit
MMTCO2e
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 89.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions. The results are 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 1993 and 1997 in the U.S. Climate Change Action Report (2002). 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.
(PM G06) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
9.5
22.0
15.8
Data Avail
12/2011
26.4
41.4
MMTCO2e
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 0.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions from the SmartWay program. The results are 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 1993 and 1997 in the U.S. Climate Change Action Report (2002). 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.
(PM G16) Million metric tons of carbon equivalent
(MMTCO2e) of greenhouse gas reductions in the
industry sector.
267.3
293.7
304.0
Data Avail
12/2011
346.2
372.9
MMTCO2e
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 201 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reductions from ENERGY STAR for the Industrial Sector, Natural
Gas Star, Combined Heat and Power Partnership, Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP), and the Landfill Rule. The results are 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 1993 and 1997 in the U.S. Climate Change Action Report (2002). Baseline data for carbon emissions related to
                                                            949

-------
Sub-
Heading

(2) Adapt to
Climate
Change
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
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.
(PM Gl 7) Percentage of registered facilities that submit
required and complete GHG data by the annual
reporting deadline of March 31.





100
Percent
Facilities
Additional Information: The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry tracks the number registered facilities emitting greenhouse gases. Approximately 13,000 reporters will be
required to submit reports by March 31, 2011 (the first reporting cycle), but the exact number of required reporters is unknown and may vary each year.
(PM ADI) Cumulative number of major scientific
models and decision support tools used in implementing
environmental management programs that integrate
climate change science data





3
Major Models
and Tools
Additional Information: The baseline in 201 1 is 4 major scientific models/decision support tools. To ensure EPA's mission, EPA will build resilience to climate change by
integrating considerations of climate data into major scientific models and decision support tools. Many of the outcomes EPA is working to attain are sensitive to climate,
and every action EPA takes must be resilient to these fluctuations.
(PM AD2) Cumulative number of major rulemakings
with climate sensitive, environmental impacts, and
within existing authorities, that integrate climate change
science data





1
Major
Rulemakings
Additional Information: The baseline in 2011 is 0 major proposed rules. To ensure EPA's mission, EPA will build resilience to climate change by integrating
considerations of climate data into major rule making processes. Many of the outcomes EPA is working to attain are sensitive to climate, and every action EPA takes must
be resilient to these fluctuations.
(PM ADS) Cumulative number of major grant, loan,
contract, or technical assistance agreement programs
that integrate climate science data into climate sensitive
projects that have an environmental outcome





1
Major
Programs
Additional Information: The baseline in 201 1 is 0 programs. To ensure EPA's mission, EPA will build resilience to climate change by integrating considerations of climate
data into grant, loan, contract, and technical assistance programs. Many of the outcomes EPA is working to attain are sensitive to climate, and every action EPA takes must
be resilient to these fluctuations.
950

-------
Objective 2 - Improve Air Quality: Achieve and maintain health-based air pollution standards and reduce risk from toxic air pollutants and
indoor air contaminants.
Sub-
Heading
(1) Reduce
Criteria
Pollutants and
Regional Haze
Performance Measures
(PM A01) Maintain annual emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) from electric power generation sources
nationwide at or below 6 million tons
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
9,400,000
Actual
5,700,000
FY 2010
Target
8,950,000
Actual
Data Avail
12/2011
CR
2011
Target
6,000,000
FY 2012
Target
6,000,000
Unit
Tons
Emitted
Additional Information: The baseline in 1980 is 17.4 million tons of SO2 emissions from electric utility sources. Statutory SO2 emissions capped in 2010 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. 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. The data is contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant
Emissions Trends Report.
(PM M9) Cumulative reduction in population-weighted
ambient concentration of ozone in monitored counties
from 2003 baseline.
10
12.5
11
Data Avail
12/2011
12
12
Percent
Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 15,972 million people parts per billion. 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.
(PMM91) Cumulative reduction in population- weighted
ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM-
2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
5
17
6
Data Avail
12/2011
15
15
Percent
Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 2,581 million people micograms per cubic meter. The PM-2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects
improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter PM-2.5 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.
(PM M92) Cumulative percent reduction in the number
of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100
since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
29
59
33
Data Avail
12/2011
37
41
Percent
Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 for the Air Quality Index (AQI) is zero percent reduction and the 2004 result is a 15.5% reduction. The AQI is an index for
reporting daily air quality. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the national air quality standard for the pollutant, which is the level EPA has set to protect public
health. AQI values below 100 are generally thought of as satisfactory. When AQI values are above 100, air quality is considered to be unhealthy for certain sensitive
groups of people, then for everyone as AQI values get higher.
(PMM94) Percent of major NSR permits issued within
one year of receiving a complete permit application.
78
76
78
Data Avail
12/2011
78
78
Percent
Permits Issued
                                                                951

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 61%. New Source Review (NSR) requires stationary sources of air pollution to get permits before they start construction.
Permits are legal documents that the source must follow, and they specify what construction is allowed, what emission limits must be met, and often how the source must
be operated. Usually NSR permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies, and the EPA issues the permit in some cases.
(PM M95) Percent of significant Title V operating
permit revisions issued within 1 8 months of receiving a
complete permit application.
100
87
100
Data Avail
12/2011
100
100
Percent
Permits Issued
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 100%. Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities issue to air pollution sources after
the source has begun to operate. Usually Title V permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies, and the EPA issues the permit in some cases. Title V
permits must be renewed every five years.
(PM M96) Percent of new Title V operating permits
issued within 1 8 months of receiving a complete permit
application.
95
70
99
Data Avail
12/2011
99
99
Percent
Permits Issued
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 75%. Operating permits are legally enforceable documents that permitting authorities issue to air pollution sources after the
source has begun to operate. Usually Title V permits are issued by state or local air pollution control agencies, and the EPA issues the permit in some cases. Title V permits
must be renewed every five years.
(PMMM9) Cumulative percent reduction in the average
number of days during the ozone season that the ozone
standard is exceeded in non-attainment areas, weighted
by population.
23
47
26
Data Avail
12/2011
29
32
Percent
Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is zero.
(PM N35) Cumulative millions of tons of Carbon
Monoxide (CO) reduced since 2002 from mobile
sources
1.52
1.52
1.69
Data Avail
12/2011
1.86
2.03
Tons
Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline in 2000 for Carbon Monoxide emissions reduced from mobile sources is 79.2 million tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the
baseline for mobile source emissions.
(PM O33) Cumulative millions of tons of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000 from
mobile sources
1.54
1.54
1.71
Data Avail
12/2011
1.88
2.05
Tons
Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline in 2000 for Volatile Organic Compounds emissions reduced from mobile sources is 7.7 million tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is
used as the baseline for mobile source emissions.
(PMO34) Cumulative millions of tons of Nitrogen
3.05
3.05
3.39
Data Avail
3.73
4.07
Tons
952

-------
Sub-
Heading

(2) Reduce Air
Toxics
(4) Reduce
Exposure to
Indoor
Pollutants
Performance Measures
Oxides (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual
12/2011
CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit
Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline in 2002 for Nitrogen Oxide emissions reduced from mobile sources is 11.8 million tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the
baseline for mobile source emissions.
(PM P34) Cumulative tons of PM-2.5 reduced since
2000 from mobile sources
110,190
110,190
122,434
Data Avail
12/2011
136,677
146,921
Tons
Reduced
Additional Information: The baseline in 2002 for Fine Particulate Matter (PM-2.5) emissions reduced from mobile sources is 510,550 tons. The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is
used as the baseline for mobile source emissions.
(PM 001) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
36
Data Avail
12/2011
36
Data Avail
12/2011
36
37
Percent
Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 1993 is 7.24 million tons and the 2007 result is a 39 percent reduction. The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and non-cancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be
tabulated on an annual basis. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years with intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) interpolated utilizing
inventory projection models.
(PM 002) Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air
toxics from 1993 baseline.
59
Data Avail
12/2011
59
Data Avail
12/2011
59
59
Percent
Reduction
Additional Information: The baseline in 1993 is 7.24 million tons and the 2007 result is a 53 percent reduction. The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with the Agency's compendium of cancer and non-cancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be
tabulated on an annual basis. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years with intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) interpolated utilizing
inventory projection models.
(PMR16) Percent of public that is aware of the asthma
program's media campaign.
>20
33
>30
Data Avail
12/2011
>30
>30
Percent
Aware
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 27%. Public awareness is measured prior to the launch of a new wave of the campaign.
(PM Rl 7) Additional health care professionals trained
annually on the environmental management of asthma
triggers.
2,000
4,614
2,000
Data Avail
12/2011
2,000
3,000
Professionals
Trained
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 2,360 trained health care professionals.
(PM R22) Estimated annual number of schools
establishing indoor air quality programs based on EPA's
Tools for Schools guidance.
1,000
1,765
1,000
Data Avail
12/2011
1,000
1,000
Schools
953

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 3,200 schools. The Tools for Schools Program is a comprehensive resource to help schools maintain a healthy environment
in school buildings by identifying, correcting, and preventing indoor air quality problems. Poor indoor air quality can impact the comfort and health of students and staff,
which, in turn, can affect concentration, attendance, and student performance.
(PM R50) Percent of existing homes with an operating
radon mitigation system compared to the estimated
number of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L action level.
11.5
12.0
12.0
Data Avail
12/2011
12.5
13.3
Percent
Homes
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 6.9 percent of homes with radon operating mitigation systems. Radon causes lung cancer, and is a threat to health because
it tends to collect in homes, sometimes to very high concentrations. As a result, radon is the largest source of exposure to naturally occurring radiation.
(PMR51) Percent of all new single-family homes (SFH)
in high radon potential areas built with radon reducing
features.
31.5
36.1
33
Data Avail
12/2011
34.5
36
Percent
Homes
Additional Information: The baseline in 2003 is 20.7 percent of all new single-family homes. Radon causes lung cancer, and is a threat to health because it tends to collect
in homes, sometimes to very high concentrations. As a result, radon is the largest source of exposure to naturally occurring radiation.
Objective 3 - Restore the Ozone Layer: Restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public from the harmful effects of UV
radiation.
Sub-
Heading
(1) Reduce
Consumption
of Ozone -
depleting
Substances
Performance Measures
(PM SOI) Remaining US Consumption of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), chemicals that
deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer, measured in
tons of Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP).
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
<9,900
Actual
3,414
FY 2010
Target
<3,811
Actual
Data Avail
12/2011
CR
2011
Target
<3,811
FY 2012
Target
<3,811
Unit
ODP Tons
Additional Information: The baseline in 1989 for Ozone Depleting Substances consumed is 15,240 tons. The base of comparison for assessing progress 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 OOP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus export.
                                                                954

-------
Objective 4 - Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation: Minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts
should unwanted releases occur.
Sub-
Heading
( 1 ) Monitor
for Radiation
and
Prepare for
Radiological
Emergencies
Performance Measures
(PM R35) Level of readiness of radiation program
personnel and assets to support federal radiological
emergency response and recovery operations.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
90
FY 2010
Target
90
Actual
Data Avail
12/2011
CR
2011
Target
90
FY 2012
Target
90
Unit
Percent
Readiness
Additional Information: The baseline in 2005 is a 50% level of readiness. The level of readiness is measured as the percentage of response team members and assets that
meet scenario-based response criteria.
(R36) Average time of availability of quality assured
ambient radiation air monitoring data during an
emergency
0.8
0.8
0.7
Data Avail
12/2011
0.8
0.8
Days
Additional Information: The baseline in 2005 is 2.5 days.
(PMR37) Time to approve site changes affecting waste
characterization at DOE waste generator sites to ensure
safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP.
70
75
70
Data Avail
2011
70
70
Days
Additional Information: The baseline in 2004 is 1 50 days.
                                                              955

-------
     GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
     Protect and restore our waters to ensure that drinking water is safe, and that aquatic ecosystems sustain fish, plants and wildlife, and
     economic, recreational, and subsistence activities.
Objective 1 - Protect Human Health: Reduce human exposure to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters,
including protecting source waters.	
Sub-
Heading
(1) Water Safe
to Drink
Performance Measures
(PM E) 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
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
87
Actual
81.2
FY 2010
Target
87
Actual
87.2
CR
2011
Target
87
FY 2012
Target
87
Unit
Percent Population
Additional Information: In 2005, 86% of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards.
(PMaa) Percent of population served by CWSs that will
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-
based drinking water standards through approaches
including effective treatment & source water protection.
90
92.1
90*
92
91*
91
Percent Population
Additional Information: In 2005, 89% of the population served by community water systems received drinking water that met applicable drinking water standards. *The
program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMapc) Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF.
89
92
86*
91.3 | 89*
89
Percent
Additional Information: In 2005, the fund utilization rate for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund was 85 percent. *The program which this measure supports receives
funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM aph) Percent of community water systems that have
undergone a sanitary survey within the past three years
(five years for outstanding performance.)
95
88
95
87
95
95
Percent CWSs
Additional Information: In 2007, 92% of community water systems had undergone a sanitary survey. Prior to FY 2007, this measure tracked states rather than community
water systems, in compliance with this regulation.
(PM apm) Percent of community water systems that
meet all applicable health-based standards through
approaches that include effective treatment and source
water protection.
90
89.1
90
89.6
90
90
Percent Systems
     GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
956

-------
Sub-
Heading

(2) Fish and
Shellfish Safe
to Eat
(3) Water Safe
for Swimming
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In 2005, 89% of community water systems meet all applicable health based drinking water standards.
(PM aps) Percent of Classes I, II and Class III salt
solution mining wells that have lost mechanical integrity
and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby
reducing the potential to endanger underground sources
of drinking water.





90
Percent Class wells
Additional Information:
(PM apt) Number of Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells (MVWDW) and large capacity cesspools
(LCC) [approximately 23,640 in FY 2010] that are
closed or permitted (cumulative).





20,840
Number Wells
Additional Information: In 2010, there were approximately 23,640 wells.
(PM dw2) Percent of person months during which
community water systems provide drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based standards.
95
97.2
95
97.3
95
95
Percent Months
Additional Information: In 2005, community water systems provided drinking water that met all applicable health based drinking water standards during 95percent of
"person months. "
(PM pil) Percent of population in each of the U.S.
Pacific Island Territories (served by community water
systems) that meet all applicable health-based drinking
water standards, measured on a four quarter rolling
average basis.
73
80
73
82
75
78
Percent Population
Additional Information: 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. This measure is on a four quarter rolling average basis.
(PM fsl) Percent of women of childbearing age having
mercury levels in blood above the level of concern.
5.2
Data Avail
1/2011
5.1
Data Avail
3/2011
4.9
4.9
Percent Women
Additional Information: Baseline is 5.7% published by CDC in 2005 (based on data collected in 2002-3) Universe is population of women of childbearing age.
(PM ssl ) Number of waterbome disease outbreaks
attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact
with coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a 5-
year average.
2
0
2
Data Avail
3/2011
2
2
Outbreaks
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
957

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Very few outbreaks have been reported over the ten years of data reviewed in consideration of a baseline for this measure. In 2005, two
waterbome diseases were reported. Universe is not applicable to this baseline.
(PM ss2) Percent of days of beach season that coastal
and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach
safety programs are open and safe for swimming.
93
95
95
95
95
95
Percent Days/Season
Additional Information: In 2005, beaches were open 96% of the 743,036 days of the beach season (i.e., beach season days are equal to 4,025 beaches multiplied by variable
number of days of beach season at each beach).
Objective 2 - Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems: Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands on a
watershed basis, and protect urban, coastal, and ocean waters.	
Sub-
Heading
(2) Improve
Water Quality
on a
Watershed
Basis
Performance Measures
(PM L) Number of waterbody segments identified by
States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water
quality standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
2,270
Actual
2,505
FY 2010
Target
2,809*
Actual
2,909
CR
2011
Target
3,073*
FY 2012
Target
3,273
Unit
Segments
Additional Information: 2002 baseline: 39,798 water bodies identified by states and tribes as not meeting water quality standards. Water bodies where mercury is among
multiple pollutants causing impairment may be counted toward this target when all pollutants but mercury attain standards, but must be identified as still needing
restoration for mercury; 1,703 impaired water bodies are impaired by multiple pollutants including mercury, and 6,501 are impaired by mercury alone. *The program
which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM Opb) Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes
with access to drinking water supply and wastewater
disposal.
96
91
98
Data Avail
5/2011
92
93
Percent Homes
Additional Information: In 2003, 77% of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
(PM bpb) Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF.
94.5
98
92*
100
94.5*
94.5
Percent
Additional Information: In 2002 and 91% is used as the baseline for this measure. It was calculated using data collected annually from all 51 state CWSRF programs (50
states and Puerto Rico). *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base
funding plus ARRA.
     GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
958

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
(PM bpc) Percent of all major publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) that comply with their permitted
wastewater discharge standards
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
86
Actual
Data Avail
12/2010
FY 2010
Target
86
Actual
Data Avail
3/2011
CR
2011
Target
86
FY 2012
Target
86
Unit
Percent POTWs
Additional Information: The most recent baseline is 2005, at 86%. It is calculated by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) using data collected
in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) on major publicly-owned treatment works.
(PM bpf) Estimated annual reduction in millions of
pounds of phosphorus from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
4.5
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 558,000 Ibs of
(PM bpg) Estimated additional reduction in million
pounds of nitrogen from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only)
8.5
3.5
4.5
Data Avail
3/2011
4.5
4.5
Pounds (Million)
shosphorus from nonpoint sources.
9.1
8.5
Data Avail
3/2011
8.5
8.5
Pounds (Million)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 3.7 million Ibs of nitrogen from nonpoint sources.
(PM bph) Estimated additional reduction in thousands of
tons of sediment from nonpoint sources to waterbodies.
(Section 319 funded projects only)
700
2,300
700
Data Avail
3/2011
700
700
Tons (Thousand)
Additional Information: In 2005, there was a reduction of 1 .68 million tons of sediment from nonpoint sources.
(PM bpk) Number of TMDLs that are established by
States and approved by EPA [State TMDL] on schedule
consistent with national policy (cumulative). [A TMDL
is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to
obtain water quality standards. The terms "approved"
and "established" refer to the completion and approval
oftheTMDLitselfl
33,540
36,487
39,101
38,749
41,235
43,711
TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, more than 30,000 state TMDLs were completed through FY 2008. A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to
attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(PM bpl) Percent of high priority state NPDES permits
that are issued in the fiscal year.
95
147
95
142
100
100
Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states as environmentally or programmatically significant. The
annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2005, 104% of the designated priority permits were
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
959

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
issued in the fiscal year.
(PM bpn) Percent of major dischargers in Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal
year.
22.5
23.3
22.5
Data Avail
3/2011
22.5
22.5
Percent Dischargers
Additional Information: The universe consists of all major NPDES permitted facilities. The data is pulled from PCS and ICIS databases. The SNC rates are calculated on a
three year rolling average and reflect the percentage of majors that have been in SNC for one or more quarters within the particular fiscal year. In 2005, 19.7% of major
facilities were in Significant Noncompliance.
(PM bpp) Percent of submissions of new or revised
water quality standards from States and Territories that
are approved by EPA.
85
93.2
85
90.9
85
85
Percent Submissions
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 87.6% submissions approved. Expected approval rates are expected to decline in 201 1 and 2012 due to the increasing
complexity of technical and policy issues raised in state standards revisions submitted to EPA.
(PM bps) Number of TMDLs that are established or
approved by EPA [Total TMDL] on a schedule
consistent with national policy (cumulative). [A TMDL
is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to
attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and
"established" refer to the completion and approval of the
TMDL itself!
38,978
41,866
44,560
46,817
49,375
51,923
TMDLs
Additional Information: Cumulatively, EPA and states completed more than 35,000 total TMDLs through FY 2008. A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in
order to attain water quality standards. The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL itself.
(PMbpv) Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES
permits (including tribal) that are issued in the fiscal
year.
95
144
95
138
100
100
Percent Permits
Additional Information: Priority Permits are permits in need of reissuance that have been identified by states or EPA regions as environmentally or programmatically
significant. The annual universe of Priority Permits includes the number of these permits that will be issued in the current fiscal year. In 2008, 1 1 9% of the designated
priority permits were issued in the fiscal year.
(PM bpw) Percent of States and Territories that, within
the preceding 3 -year period, submitted new or revised
water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
scientific information from EPA or sources not
considered in previous standards.
68
62.5
66
67.9
64.3
64.3
Percent States and
Territories
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
960

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: In 2004, the baseline was 70% of states and territories submitting acceptable water quality criteria reflecting new scientific information. In
response to an EPA national priority, states are focusing on adopting water quality criteria for nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus). Because developing these criteria is a
complex multi-year process for many states, EPA expects some decline in performance in the short term.
(PMpi2) Percent of time that sewage treatment plants in
the U.S. Pacific Island Territories comply with permit
limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS).
62
65
62
52
63
64
Percent Time
Additional Information: The sewage treatment plants in the Pacific Island Territories compiled 59% of the time with BOD & TSS permit limits.
(PM sf3) At least seventy five percent of the monitored
stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain
Chlorophyll a(CHLA) levels at less than to equal to 0.35
ug 1-1 and light clarity( Kd) )levels at less than or equal
to0.20m-l.


No Target
Established

75
75
Percent Stations
Additional Information: In 2005, Total water quality was at chl < 0.2 ug/1, light attenuation < 0. 1 3/meter, DIN < 0.75 micromolar, and TP < 0.2 micromolar.
(PM sf4) At least seventy five percent of the monitored
stations in the near shore and coastal waters of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will maintain
dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or
equal to 0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at
less than or equal to .25 uM.


No Target
Established

75
75
Percent Stations
Additional Information:
(PM sf5) Improve the water quality of the Everglades
ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus, including
meeting the 10 ppb total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh.
Maintain
Not
Maintained
Maintain
Not
Maintained
Maintain
Maintain
Parts/Billion
Additional Information: In 2005, The average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in the Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water
Conservation 3A, 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.
(PM uwl) Number of urban water projects initiated
addressing water quality issues in the community.





3
Projects
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
961

-------
Sub-
Heading

(3) Improve
Coastal and
Ocean Water
(4) Increase
Wetlands
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: This measure tracks progress in the implementation of grants that help communities access, improve, and benefit from their urban waters and
surrounding land. Projects that address water quality in the community will be tracked through grantee reporting, and can include the following activities (as authorized
under Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act): planning, outreach, training, studies, monitoring, and demonstration of innovative approaches to manage water quality.
(PM uw2) Number of urban water projects completed
addressing water quality issues in the community.





0
Projects
Additional Information: This measure tracks progress in the implementation of grants that help communities access, improve, and benefit from their urban waters and
surrounding land. Projects that address water quality in the community will be tracked through grantee reporting, and can include the following activities (as authorized
under Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act): planning, outreach, training, studies, monitoring, and demonstration of innovative approaches to manage water quality.
(PM wq2) Remove the specific causes of waterbody
impairment identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
6,891
7,530
Additional Information: In 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body im
(PM wq3) Improve water quality conditions in impaired
watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach
(cumulative).
102
104
8,512
8,446
9,016
9,566
Causes
Bailments were identified by states.
141
168
208
238
Watersheds
Additional Information: In 2002, there were 10 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watershed of focus having 1 or more water bodies impaired. The
watershed boundaries for this measure are those established at the "12 digit" scale by the U.S. Geological Survey. Watersheds at this scale average 22 square miles in size.
"Improved" means that that one or more of the impairment causes identified in 2002 are removed for at least 40 percent of the impaired water bodies or impaired
miles/acres, or there is significant watershed-wide improvement, as demonstrated by valid scientific information, in one or more water quality parameters associated with
the impairments.
(PM 202) Acres protected or restored in National
Estuary Program study areas.
100,000
125,437
100,000
89,985
100,000
100,000
Acres
Additional Information: 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
(PM co5) Percent of active dredged material ocean
dumping sites that will have achieved environmentally
acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's
management plan).
98
99
98
90.1
98
95
Percent Sites
Additional Information: The baseline was calculated in 2005 at 60 sites.
(PM 4E) 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.
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
No net loss
No Net
Loss
No Net
Loss
Acres
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
962

-------
Sub-
Heading

(5) Improve
the Health of
the Great
Lakes
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: EPA receives data for this measure from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). ACE recently finalized their database and was able to collect actual
data for the first time in FY 2009.
(PM 4G) Number of acres restored and improved, under
the 5-Star, NEP, 319, and great waterbody programs
(cumulative).
88,000
103,507
110,000
130,000
150,000
170,000
Acres
Additional Information: From 1986-1997, the US had an annual net wetland loss of an estimated 58,500 acres, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. From
1998-2004, the US achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands, as measured by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
(PM 433) Improve the overall ecosystem health of the
Great Lakes by preventing water pollution and
protecting aquatic systems (using a 40-point scale.)
No Target
Established

No Target
Established

23.4
23.9
Scale
Additional Information: The ecosystem health index for the Great Lakes in 2002 was 20.
(PM 606) Cubic yards of contaminated sediment
remediated (cumulative from 1 997) in the Great Lakes.
5.9
6.0
6.3
7.3
8.0
8.7
Cubic Yards
(million)
Additional Information: 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring remediation
(PM 620) Cumulative percentage decline for the long-
term trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout
and walleye samples.
5
6
10
43
37
40
Percent Decline
Additional Information: 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. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring and
Surveillance Program (GLFMSP) samples are collecting in alternating locations in each lake by year. In even years, samples are collected from a more shallow site and, in
general, have higher contaminant concentrations than samples collected in odd years where samples are collected from a deeper location. Two alternating sites were
chosen to give a greater spatial representation of the lake. However, these two sites are not representative of the entire Great Lakes, in fact, GLFMSP samples collected in
a specific site are only representative of that site.
(PM 625) Number of Beneficial Use Impairments
removed within Areas of Concern.
21
12
20
12
26
31
BUIs Removed
Additional Information: Universe of 261 . Baseline of 1 1 .
(PM 626) Number of Areas of Concern in the Great
Lakes where all management actions necessary for
delisting have been implemented (cumulative).


1
1
1
3
AOCs
Additional Information:
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
963

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
(PM 629) Number of multi-agency rapid response plans
established, mock exercises to practice responses carried
out under those plans, and/or actual response actions
(cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target
4
Actual

CR
2011
Target
4
FY 2012
Target
10
Unit
Number
Responses/Plans
Additional Information:
(PM 630) Five-year average annual loadings of soluble
reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from
tributaries draining targeted watersheds.


0

0
0.5
Average Loadings
Additional Information:
(PM 635) Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island
habitats protected, restored and enhanced (cumulative).


15,000

15,000
20,000
Acres
Additional Information:
(PM 627) Number of non-native invasive species newly
detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem.


1.1

1.0
1.0
Number of Species
Additional Information:
(PM 628) Acres managed for populations of invasive
species controlled to a target level (cumulative).


1,000

1,500
2,600
Number of Acres
Additional Information:
(PM 632) Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA
conservation practices implemented to reduce erosion,
nutrients, and/or pesticide loading.


2%
increase

2%
increase
8%
increase
Percent (Acres)
Additional Information:
(PM 633) Percent of populations of native aquatic non-
threatened and non-endangered species self-sustaining in
the wild (cumulative).


33%;
48/147

33%;
48/147
35%;
51/147
Number of Species
Additional Information:
(PM 634) Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-
associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced
(cumulative).


5,000

5,000
7,500
Acres
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
964

-------
Sub-
Heading

(6) Improve
the Health of
the
Chesapeake
Bay
Ecosystem
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information:
(PM 636) Number of species delisted due to recovery.


0

0
l
Species
Additional Information:
(PM 637) Percent of days of the beach season that the
Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety
programs are open and safe for swimming.





94
Percent Days
Additional Information:
(PM cb3) Percent of goal achieved for implementation
of nitrogen reduction practices (expressed as progress
meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of 162.5 million
Ibs).
50
49
52
51
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information:
(PM cb4) Percent of goal achieved for implementation
of phosphorus reduction practices (expressed as progress
meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million
Ibs).
64
65
66
67
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information:
(PM cb5) Percent of goal achieved for implementation
of sediment reduction practices (expressed as progress
meeting the sediment reduction goal of 1 .69 million Ibs).
67
64
71
69
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information:
(PM cb6) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
nitrogen reduction actions to achieve the final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3
watershed model.





1
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 33% goal achievement (52.82 million Ibs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 46% goal achievement (74.63 million Ibs
reduced since 1986.)
(PM cb7) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
phosphorus reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3





1
Percent Goal
Achieved
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
965

-------
Sub-
Heading

(7) Restore
and Protect the
Gulf of
Mexico
(8) Restore
and Protect
Long Island
Sound
Performance Measures
watershed model.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit

Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 56% goal achievement (8.02 million Ibs reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 62% goal achievement (8.83 million Ibs
reduced since 1986.)
(PM cb8) Percent of goal achieved for implementing
sediment reduction actions to achieve final TMDL
allocations, as measured through the phase 5.3
watershed model.





l
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2002 baseline is 47% goal achievement (0.79 million tons reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 61% goal achievement (1.03 million tons
reduced since 1986.)
(PM 22b) Improve the overall health of coastal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report.
2.5
2.2
2.5
Data Avail
12/2011
2.5
2.6
Scale
Additional Information: In 2008, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2.2 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.
(PM xgl) Restore water and habitat quality to meet
water quality standards in impaired segments in 13
priority coastal areas (cumulative starting in FY 07).
96
131
96
170
202
234
Impaired Segments
Additional Information: In 2008, Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands habitats included 3,769,370 acres.
(PM xg2) Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative
number of acres of important coastal and marine
habitats.
26,000
29,344
27,500
29,552
30,000
30,600
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 25,215 acres were restored, enhanced, or protected in the Gulf of Mexico.
(PM H5) Percent of goal achieved in reducing trade-
equalized (TE) point source nitrogen discharges to Long
Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146 TE
Ibs/day.


52
Data Avail
3/2011
55
56
Percent Goal
Achieved
Additional Information: The 2000 TMDL baseline is 59,146 Trade-Equalized (TE) pounds/day. The 2014 TMDL target is 22,774 TE/pounds/day.
(PM H8) Restore, protect or enhance acres of coastal
habitat from the 2010 baseline of 2,975 acres.





250
Acres
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
966

-------
Sub-
Heading

(9) Restore
and Protect the
Puget Sound
Basin
(10) Sustain
and Restore
the U.S.-
Mexico
Border
Environmental
Health
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: The long-term goal of this measure was significantly exceeded in FY 2010. EPA is revising this measure in FY 2012 to measure acres instead of
percent of goal achieved. EPA will establish annual targets with partners to measure annual progress.
(PM U9) Reopen miles of river and stream corridors to
diadromous fish passage from the 2012 baseline of 17.7
river miles by removal of dams and barriers or by
installation of bypass structures.





38
Miles
Additional Information: The long-term goal of this measure was significantly exceeded in FY 2010. EPA is revising this measure in FY 2012 to measure acres instead of
percent of goal achieved. EPA will establish annual targets with partners to measure annual progress.
(PMpsl) Improve water quality and enable the lifting of
harvest restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing
areas impacted by degrading or declining water quality.
600
1,730
1,800
4,453
4,953
5,453
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 1 ,566 acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions. The universe of potentially
recoverable shellfish areas is approximately 10,000 acres which are closed due to nonpoint source pollution.
(PM ps3) Restore the acres of tidally and seasonally
influenced estuarine wetlands.
3,000
5,751
6,500
10,062
12,363
13,863
Acres
Additional Information: In 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands were restored
(PM 4pg) Loading of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) removed (million pounds/year) from the U.S.-
Mexico border area since 2003.




108.2
108.8
Million Pounds/Year
Additional Information: The baseline starts at the beginning of FY 2003, with zero pounds of biological oxygen demand (BOD) removed from Border region waters.
Wastewater infrastructure project completions since FY 2003 are the basis of reporting for this cumulative measure.
(PM xb2) Number of additional homes provided safe
drinking water in the U.S. -Mexico border area that
lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
1,500
1,584
28,434
52,130
54,130
100
(Annual)
Homes
Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e., connected) to safe drinking
water as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)- supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes since this
measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S. -Mexico border area lacking access to safe drinking water
in 2003 (98,515 homes). The known universe was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA) sources. This measure was
modified from cumulative to annual, beginning in FY 2012, to better capture annual program progress.
(PM xb3) Number of additional homes provided
adequate wastewater sanitation in the U.S. -Mexico
105,500
43,594
246,175
254,125
461,125
1,282
(Annual)
Homes
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
967

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation
in 2003.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit

Additional Information: Units and Baseline: "Additional homes" represents the number of existing households that are provided access (i.e., connected) to adequate
wastewater sanitation as a result of Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF)-supported projects. The Program measures from a baseline of zero additional homes
since this measure was developed in 2003. Universe: The known universe is the number of existing households in the U.S. -Mexico border area lacking access to adequate
wastewater sanitation services in 2003 (690,723). The known universe of unconnected homes was calculated from U.S. Census and the Mexican National Water
Commission (CONAGUA) sources. This measure was modified from cumulative to annual, beginning in FY 2012, to better capture annual program progress.
GOAL 2: PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS
968

-------
    GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES AND ADVANCING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
    Clean up communities, advance sustainable development,  and protect disproportionately impacted low-income, minority, and tribal
    communities. Prevent releases of harmful substances and clean up and restore contaminated areas.	
Objective 1 - Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities: Support sustainable, resilient, and livable communities by working with local,
state, tribal, and federal partners to promote smart growth, emergency preparedness and recovery planning, brownfield redevelopment, and the
equitable distribution of environmental benefits.	
Sub-
Heading
(2) Assess and
Cleanup
Brownfields
(3) Reduce
Chemical
Risks at
Facilities and
Performance Measures
(PM B29) Brownfield properties assessed.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
1,295
FY 2010
Target
1,000*
Actual
1,326
CR
2011
Target
1,000*
FY 2012
Target
1000
Unit
Properties
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program assessed 1,295 properties. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The
FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM B32) Number of properties cleaned up using
Brownfields funding.
60
93
60*
109
60*
60
Properties
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program cleaned up 93 properties. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The
FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM B33) Acres of Brownfields properties made ready
for reuse.
1,000
2,660
1,000*
3,627
1,000*
1000
Acres
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program made 2,660 acres of land ready for reuse. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from
ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PMB34) Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
5,000
6,490
5,000*
5,177
5,000*
5000
Jobs
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged 6,490 jobs. *The program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY
2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM B37) Billions of dollars of cleanup and
redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites.
0.9
1.06
0.9*
1.4
0.9*
0.9
Dollars (Billions)
Additional Information: In FY 2009, EPA's Brownfields program leveraged S1.06B in cleanup and redevelopment funding. *The program which this measure supports
receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM CH2) Number of risk management plan audits and
inspections conducted.
400
654
400
618
560
578
Audits
Additional Information: Between FY 2000 and FY 2009, 5,641 Risk Management Plan audits were completed.
    GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES
969

-------
Sub-
Heading
in
Communities
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit

Objective 2 - Preserve Land: Conserve resources and prevent land contamination by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and
ensuring proper management of waste and petroleum products.	
Sub-
Heading
(1) Waste
Generation
and Recycling
(2) Minimize
Releases of
Hazardous
Performance Measures
(PM MW2) Increase in percentage of coal combustion
ash that is beneficially used instead of disposed.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
1.8
Actual
-6
FY 2010
Target
1.4
Actual
Data Avail
12/2011
CR
2011
Target
1.4
FY 2012
Target
1.4
Unit
Percent Increase
Additional Information: In 2008, approximately 136 million tons of coal combustion ash was generated, and 40% was used rather than landfilled. There is a one-year data
lag in reporting results.
(PMMW5) Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded
open dumps in Indian Country or on other tribal lands.
27
129
22
141
45
45
Dumps
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for reporting identified in 2006.
(PM MW8) Number of tribes covered by an integrated
solid waste management plan.
16
31
23
23
14
5
Tribes
Additional Information: The baseline for this measure was set at zero, in response to new criteria for reporting identified in 2006. Beginning in FY 2012, RCRA program
grant funding supporting the development of integrated waste management plans will no longer be offered. However, the performance target may be achieved with the
assistance of other funding sources, including tribes, other EPA programs, or other federal agencies. Technical assistance to the tribes, such as that provided through tribal
circuit riders, will remain available.
(PMMW9) Billions of pounds of municipal solid waste
reduced, reused, or recycled.
19.5
Data Avail
12/2010
20.5
Data Avail
12/2011
21
22
Pounds (Billions)
Additional Information: This municipal solid waste measure was first implemented in FY 2009. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results.
(PM HWO) Number of hazardous waste facilities with
new or updated controls.
100
115
100
140
100
100
Facilities
Additional Information: There are an estimated 894 facilities that will require initial approved or updated controls out of the universe of 2,450 facilities.
    GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES
970

-------
Sub-
Heading
Waste and
Petroleum
Products
Performance Measures
(PM ST1) Reduce the number of confirmed releases at
UST facilities to 5 percent fewer than the prior year's
target.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
<9,000
Actual
7,168
FY 2010
Target
<9,000
Actual
6,328
CR
2011
Target
<8,550
FY 2012
Target
<8,120
Unit
UST Releases
Additional Information: Between FY 1 999 and F Y 2009, confirmed UST releases averaged 1 0,630 and the annual number of confirmed releases in F Y 2009 was 7, 1 68.
(PM ST6) Increase the percentage of UST facilities that
are in significant operational compliance (SOC) with
both release detection and release prevention
requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target.
65
66.4
65.5
68.6
66
66.5
Percent
Additional Information: Implementing the 2005 Energy Policy Act requirements, EPA and states are inspecting infrequently inspected facilities, and are finding many out
of compliance, impacting our ability to achieve compliance rate goals. As a result, the significant operational compliance targets have been adjusted to reflect a 0.5%
increase each year to maintain aggressive goals.
Objective 3 - Restore Land: Prepare for and respond to accidental or intentional releases of contaminants and clean up and restore polluted
sites.
Sub-
Heading
(2) Emergency
Preparedness
and Response
Performance Measures
(PM 132) Superfund-lead removal actions completed
annually.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
195
Actual
214
FY 2010
Target
170
Actual
199
CR
2011
Target
170
FY 2012
Target
170
Unit
Removals
Additional Information: Between 2002 and 2009 EPA completed an average of 203 Superfund-lead removal response actions.
(PM 135) PRP removal completions (including
voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA.


170
192
170
170
Removals
Additional Information: In FY 2010, EPA will begin implementing a new measure to track removals undertaken by potentially responsible parties, either voluntarily or
pursuant to an enforcement instrument, where EPA has overseen the removals.
(PM 337) Percent of all FRP inspected facilities found
to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.


15
48
30
35
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
    GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES
971

-------
Sub-
Heading

(3) Cleanup
Contaminated
Land
Performance Measures
(PM338) Percent of all SPCC inspected facilities found
to be non-compliant which are brought into compliance.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target
15
Actual
36
CR
2011
Target
30
FY 2012
Target
35
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: New measure. Baseline to be established during FY 2010.
(PMC1) Score on annual Core NAR.


55
87.9
60
70
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2009, the average Core NAR Score was 84.3 percent for EPA headquarters, regions, and special teams prepared for responding to
emergencies
(PM 112) Number of LUST cleanups completed that
meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration.
12,250
12,944
12,250*
11,591
12,250*
12,400
Cleanups
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 388,331 leaking underground storage tank cleanups. *The program which this measure
supports receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM 113) Number of LUST cleanups completed that
meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration in Indian Country.
30
49
30
62
38
42
Cleanups
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA completed a cumulative total of 848 leaking underground storage tank cleanups in Indian country. This is a subset of the
national total of 388,331 leaking underground storage tanks cleanups completed.
(PM 115) Number of Superfund remedial site
assessments completed.




900
900
Assessments
Additional Information: This new measure accounts for all remedial assessments performed at sites addressed under the Superfund program whereas our previous measure
only captured a subset of these assessments (i.e., the final assessments completed at sites). By capturing the assessment work leading to final assessment decisions,
including the initial screening assessments to determine Superfund eligibility, the new measure more fully accounts for the work performed during the Superfund site
assessment process. As of 2010, the cumulative total number of assessments completed was 88,000.
(PM 141) Annual number of Superfund sites with
remedy construction completed.
20
20
22*
18
22*
22
Completions
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, Superfund had completed construction at 1,080 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports
receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
(PM 151) Number of Superfund sites with human
exposures under control.
10
11
10*
18
10*
10
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 1,320 final and deleted NPL sites. *The program which this measure supports
receives funds from ARRA. The FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Targets represent the expected total from base funding plus ARRA.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES
972

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
(PM 152) Superfund sites with contaminated
groundwater migration under control.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
15
Actual
16
FY 2010
Target
15
Actual
18
CR
2011
Target
15
FY 2012
Target
15
Unit
Sites
Additional Information: Through F Y 2009, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 1 ,0 12 final and deleted NPL sites.
(PM 170) Number of remedial action project
completions at Superfund NPL Sites.
No Target
Established
97
No Target
Established

103
113
Completions
Additional Information: This is a new performance measure for FY 201 1 . Since program inception through the end of FY 2009, Superfund had completed 2,603 remedial
action projects at final and deleted NPL sites.
(PM CA1) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities
with human exposures to toxins under control.


69
72
72
76
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of FY 2009, potential human exposures to toxins were controlled at 65 percent of facilities. There is a universe of 3,746 low, medium,
and high National Corrective Action Prioritization System-ranked facilities.
(PM CA2) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities
with migration of contaminated groundwater under
control.


61
63
64
67
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of FY 2009, migration of contaminated groundwater was controlled at 58 percent of facilities. There is a universe of 3,746 low,
medium, and high National Corrective Action Prioritization System-ranked facilities.
(PM CAS) Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities
with final remedies constructed.


35
37
38
42
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of FY 2009, cleanup remedies had been constructed at 32 percent of the universe of 3,746 low, medium and high National Corrective
Action Prioritization System-ranked facilities.
(PM S10) Number of Superfund sites ready for
anticipated use site-wide.
65
66
65
66
65
65
Sites
Additional Information: Through FY 2009, EPA's Superfund program had ensured that 409 final and deleted NPL sites met the criteria to be determined ready for
anticipated use site-wide.
GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES
973

-------
Objective 4 - Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country: Support federally-recognized tribes to build
environmental management capacity, assess environmental conditions and measure results, and implement environmental programs  in Indian
country.	
Sub-
Heading
(no
subobjective)
Performance Measures
(PM 5PQ) Percent of Tribes implementing federal
regulatory environmental programs in Indian country
(cumulative).
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
7
Actual
12.6
FY 2010
Target

Actual

FY 2011
Target
18
FY 2012
Target
22
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding.
(PM 5PR) Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved
environmental monitoring and assessment activities in
Indian country (cumulative.)
23
40


52
54
Percent
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding.
(PM 5PS) Percent of Tribes with an environmental
program (cumulative).
60
64


70
73
Percent
Additional Information: There are 574 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP funding.
    GOAL 3: CLEANING UP OUR COMMUNITIES
974

-------
     GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
	Reduce the risk and increase the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution at the source.	
 Objective 1 - Ensure Chemical Safety: Reduce the risk of chemicals that enter our products, our environment, and our bodies.
Sub-
Heading
(1) Protect
Human Health
from Chemical
Risks
Performance Measures
(PM 008) Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead levels (>5 ug/dl).
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target
3.5
Actual
Data Avail
11/2012
CR
2011
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2012
Target
1.5
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in March of 2009 estimated 4.1% of children aged
1-5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 5 ug/dl or greater) from 2003/4 sampling data. Data for this measure are reported biennially.
(PM 009) Cumulative number of certified Renovation
Repair and Painting firms


100,000
59,143
100,000
140,000
Firms
Additional Information: The baseline is zero in 2009. This year was chosen because 2010 is the first year that firms will submit applications to EPA to become certified.
Over time, firms will either become certified directly through EPA (tracked through Federal Lead-based Paint Program (FLPP) or through an authorized State program
(tracked through grant reports/ACS).
(PM 012) Percent reduction of children's exposure to
rodenticides.




10
5
Percent
Additional Information: The total number of confirmed and likely rodenticide exposures to children in 2008 is 1 1 ,674 based data from the Poison Control Centers' National
Poison Data System.
(PM 091) Percent of decisions completed on time (on or
before PRIA or negotiated due date).


99
99.7
99
99
Percent
Additional Information: In 2008, 99.9% of decisions were completed on time.
(PM 10D) 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.
No Target
Established
Biennial
Additional Information: Baseline for percent difference in the geometric mean blood k
non-low income children 1-5 years old is 32% in 1999-2002. Data for this measure is re
(PM 143) Percentage of agricultural acres treated with
reduced-risk pesticides.
20
Data Avail
10/2011
28
Data Avail
10/2012
No Target
Established
13
Percent
ivel in low-income children 1 -5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for
ported biennially.
21
Data Avail
10/2012
21
22
Percent
Additional Information: Baseline year is 1998 using Doane Marketing Research, Inc. a private sector research database. Baseline was 3.6% of total acreage. Results are
reported end of calendar year.
     GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
                                                                 975

-------
Sub-
Heading

Performance Measures
(PM 164) Number of pesticide registration review
dockets opened.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target
70
Actual
75
CR
2011
Target
70
FY 2012
Target
70
Unit
Dockets
Additional Information: Baseline for registration review work dockets is 71 opened in 2008.
(PM 240) Maintain timeliness of Section 1 8 Emergency
Exemption Decisions
45
40
45
50
45
45
Days
Additional Information: Baseline for S 1 8 decisions is 45 days in 2005 .
(PM 247) Percent of new chemicals or organisms
introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable
risks to workers, consumers, or the environment.
100
97
100
Data Avail
10/2011
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: 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%.
(PM 266) Reduction in concentration of targeted
pesticide analytes in the general population.
No Target
Established
Biennial
50,50
Data Avail
10/2011
No Target
Established
50,50
Percent
Additional Information: NHANES (2001-2002 baseline) measure is based on NHANES 95th percentile concentrations for six non-specific organophosphate analytes (0.45
umol/L), and a chlorpyrifos- specific metabolite (TCPy) (12.4 ug/L). Data for this measure are reported biennially.
(PM D6A) Reduction in concentration of PFOA in
serum in the general population.





1
Percent Reduction
Additional Information: Baselines are derived from the Centers for Disease Control's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) concentration data in
the general population and results are reported biennially. PFOA baselines are based on 2005/2006 geometric mean data in serum: 3.92 ug/L.
(PM E01) Number of chemicals for which Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have
been completed




3
5
Chemicals
Additional Information: For FY 2010, it is anticipated that EDSP decisions will have been completed for 13 chemicals. Several factors will impact the schedule for
completing EDSP decisions including, for example, the number of pesticide cancellations and other actions that will remove a chemical from commerce and/or
discontinue manufacture and import, the number of pesticide cancellations involving minor agricultural uses, the number of pre-enforcement challenges to test orders,
unforeseen laboratory capacity limits, and unforeseen technical problems with completing the Tier 1 assays for a particular chemical.
(PME02) Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1
test orders have been issued




40
40
Chemicals
Additional Information: Through FY 2010, it is anticipated that Tier 1 test orders will have been issued for 67 chemicals. Annual performance targets for this measure will
be subject to obtaining an approved Information Collection Request and the EPA resources available for issuing EDSP Tier 1 test orders.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
                                                        976

-------
Sub-
Heading

(2) Protect
Ecosystems
from Chemical
Risks
Performance Measures
(PM EOS) Number of screening and testing assays for
which validation decisions have been reached
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target
2
FY 2012
Target
4
Unit
Assays
Additional Information: Through FY 2010, it is anticipated that validation decisions will have been reached for 15 screening and testing assays. There are several steps
within the validation process including: preparation of detailed review papers, performance of prevalidation studies, validation by multiple labs, and peer reviews. A
decision to discontinue validation efforts for a particular assay could occur during any of these steps while a decision to accept an assay as validated occurs after all the
steps are successfully completed.
(PM HC1) Annual number of hazard characterizations
completed for HPV chemicals


230
270
300
500
Hazardous Units
Additional Information: The cumulative baseline through FY 2009 is 1,095. This is made up on US and internationally sponsored Hazard Characterization through 2009.
International HCs started being produced in the early 1990's and US sponsored HCs started to be produced in 2007.
(PM Jll) Reduction in moderate to severe exposure
incidents associated with organophosphates and
carbamate insecticides in the general population.





10
Percent
Additional Information: Moderate to severe exposure incidents reported during 2008 is 316 as reported in the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National
Poisoning Data System.
(PM J15) Reduction in concentration of targeted
pesticide analytes in children.





50,50
Percent
Additional Information: NHANES (2001-2002 baseline) measure is based on NHANES 95th percentile concentrations for six non-specific organophosphate analytes (0.55
umol/L), and a chlorpyrifos- specific metabolite (TCPy) (16.0 ug/L). Data for this measure are reported biennially.
(PM Oil) Number of Product Reregistration Decisions
2,000
1,770
1,500
1,712
1,500
1,200
Decisions
Additional Information: Actual in FY 2005 is 501 product re-registrations. The 2010 target was exceeded due to a high number of products withdrawn by the registrants
(initially undercounted due to a system coding error which has been corrected). The program is anticipating a decline to the outyear target given the smaller universe of
decisions to be made.
(PM 230) Number of pesticide registration review final
work plans completed.


70
70
70
70
Work Plans
Additional Information: Baseline for final work plans for registered pesticides reviewed is 47 in 2008.
(PM 268) Percent of urban watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for three key
pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos and
carbaryl).
No Target
Established
Biennial
5, 0, 20
6.7,0,33
No Target
Established
5,0,10
Percent
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
                                                        977

-------
Sub-
Heading

(3) Ensure
Transparency
of Chemical
Health and
Safety
Information
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
Additional Information: Based on FY 1992 - 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, urban
watersheds that exceeded the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks are 73% for diazinon, 37% for chlorpyrifos, and 13% for carbaryl. Data for this measure
are reported biennially.
(PM 269) Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not
exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key
pesticides of concern (azinphos-methyl and
chlorpyrifos).


0,10
0,8
No Target
Established
0,10
Percent
Additional Information: Based on FY 1992 - 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, agricultural
watersheds that exceeded the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks are 18% for azinphos-methyl and 18% for chlorpyrifos. Data for this measure are
reported biennially.
(PM 276) Percent of registration review chemicals with
identified endangered species concerns, for which EPA
obtains any mitigation of risk prior to consultation with
DOCandDOI.





5
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline is 0% for each annual reporting period as percentages are not cumulative. The data is tracked by OPP using internal tracking
numbers. The data is obtained from ecological risk assessments and effects determinations prepared to support a registration review case.
(PMC 18) Percentage of historical CBI claims in health
and safety studies reviewed and challenged, as
appropriate.




5
20
Percent
Additional Information: Prior to January 2010, the number of TSCA CBI claims had not been reviewed or challenged, where appropriate, was 994.
(PMC 19) Percentage of CBI claims in health and safety
studies reviewed and challenged, as appropriate, as they
are submitted.




100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Prior to January 2010, the percent of TSCA CBI claims that were routinely reviewed or challenged, where appropriate, was 0%.
GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
                                                        978

-------
Objective 2 - Promote Pollution Prevention: Conserve and protect natural resources by promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of
other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.	
Sub-
Heading
(1) Prevent
Pollution and
Promote
Environmental
Stewardship
Performance Measures
(PM 262) Gallons of water reduced through pollution
prevention.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
1.79
Actual
4.67
FY 2010
Target
26.2
Actual
Data Avail
11/2011
CR
2011
Target
28.6
FY 2012
Target
27.8
Unit
Gallons (Billions)
Additional Information: Baseline is 5 1 .3 billion gallons reduced through 2008. Results are complied using data reported by P2's seven centers.
(PM 263) Business, institutional and government costs
reduced through pollution prevention.
130
276.5
1,060
Data Avail
11/2011
1,042
847
Dollars Saved
(Millions)
Additional Information: Baseline is 3.1 billion dollars saved through 2008. Results are complied using data reported by P2's seven centers.
(PM 264) Pounds of hazardous materials reduced
through pollution prevention.
494
494
1,625
Data Avail
11/2011
1,549
1,064
Pounds (Millions)
Additional Information: Baseline is 4.8 billion pounds reduced through 2008. Results are complied using data reported by P2's seven centers.
(PM 297) Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
(MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or offset through
pollution prevention.
2
1.618
5.9
Data Avail
11/2011
5.7
6.3
MTCO2e (Millions)
Additional Information: Baseline is 6.5 MMTC02e reduced through 2008. Results are compiled using data reported by P2's seven centers.
(PMP25) Percent increased in use of safer chemicals





7
Percent
Additional Information: In 2009 476 M Ibs. of safer chemicals were reported to be in commerce by Design for the Environment (DfE).
    GOAL 4: ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHEMICALS AND PREVENTING POLLUTION
                                                                   979

-------
     GOAL 5: ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
     Protect human health and the environment through vigorous and targeted civil and criminal enforcement. Assure compliance with
     environmental laws.
Objective 1  - Enforce Environmental Laws: Pursue vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air, and
chemical hazards in communities. Assure strong, consistent, and effective enforcement of federal environmental laws nationwide.	
Sub-
Heading
(1) Maintain
Enforcement
Presence and
Deterrence
Performance Measures
(PM 409) Conduct 21,000 federal inspections and
evaluations.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target
21,000
Unit
Inspections/Evaluatio
ns
Additional Information: FY 2005-2009 baseline: 21,000 annually. The FY 2012 President's Budget provides additional resources to the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance to strengthen its monitoring program and expand the use of electronic reporting. The President's Budget also provides additional resources to
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response for enforcement and compliance activities for two programs: Oil Spill Prevention and Preparedness, and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste and Risk Management Programs.

(PM 410) Initiate 3,900 civil judicial and administrative
enforcement cases.





3,900
Cases
Additional Information: FY 2005-2009 baseline: 3,900 cases annually.
(PM 411) Conclude 3,800 civil judicial and
administrative enforcement cases.





3,800
Cases
Additional Information: FY 2005-2009 baseline: 3,800 annually.
(PM 412) Review the overall compliance status of 100
percent of the open consent decrees.





100
Percent
Additional Information: FY 2009 baseline: 100 percent.
(PM 418) Increase the percentage of criminal cases
having the most significant health, environmental, and
deterrence impacts to 43 percent.





43
Percent
Additional Information: FY2010 baseline: 36 percent.
(PM 419) Maintain a 75 percent rate for criminal cases
with individual defendants.





75
Percent
Additional Information: FY 2006-2008 baseline: 78 percent.
(PM 420) Increase the percentage of criminal cases with





40
Percent
     GOAL 5: ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
980

-------
Sub-
Heading

(2) Support
Taking Action
on Climate
Change and
Improving Air
Quality
(3) Support
Protecting
America's
Waters
(4) Support
Cleaning Up
Communities
and
Advancing
Sustainable
Development
Performance Measures
charges filed to 40 percent.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit

Additional Information: FY 2006-20 10 baseline: 36 percent.
(PM 421) Maintain a 85 percent conviction rate for
criminal defendants.





85
Percent
Additional Information: FY 2006-2010 baseline: 87 percent.
(PM 400) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 480 million
estimated pounds of air pollutants through concluded
enforcement actions.


480
410
480
480
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 480 million pounds, annual average over the period.
(PM 402) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 320 million
estimated pounds of water pollutants through concluded
enforcement actions.


320
1,000
320
320
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: 320 million pounds, annual average over the period. For FY 2010, two stormwater home builder actions
contributed to more than half of the one billion pound pollutant reduction result.
(PM 078) Address all Statute of Limitations cases for
Superfund sites with unaddressed total past costs equal
to or greater than $200,000.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2009, the Agency will have addressed 100 percent of Cost Recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with total past costs equal to or greater
than $200,000.
(PM 285) Reach a settlement or take an enforcement
action before the start of a remedial action at 99 percent
of Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible
parties other than the federal government.
95
100
95
98
95
99
Percent
Additional Information: InFY 1998 approximately 70 percent of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding Federal facilities) was initiated by private parties. In FY 2003,
a settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites.
(PM 405) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 6,500 million
estimated pounds of hazardous waste through concluded
enforcement actions.


6,500
11,800
6,500
6,500
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2008 Baseline: 6,500 million pounds. The results for this measure are driven by a small number of very large cases and do not necessarily
GOAL 5: ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
981

-------
Sub-
Heading

(5) Support
Ensuring the
Safety of
Chemicals and
Preventing
Pollution
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
represent typical annual results. For example, in FY 2010 over 99% of the total 11.75 billion pounds of hazardous waste reduced, treated, or eliminated came from two
cases - CF Industries Inc. (9.87 billion pounds) and Exxonmobil Oil Corporation (1 .86 billion pounds).
(PM 41 7) Obtain commitments to clean up 300 million
cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media
as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective
action enforcement actions.





300
Million Cubic Yards
Additional Information: FY 2007-2009 baseline: 300 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media, annual average over the period.
(PM 404) Reduce, treat, or eliminate 3.8 million
estimated pounds of toxic and pesticide pollutants
through concluded enforcement actions.


3.8
8.3
3.8
3.8
Million Pounds
Additional Information: FY 2005-2008 Average Baseline: The program used existing data to estimate results for FY 2005-2008, which yielded an approximate average
baseline of 3.8 million pounds. FY 2010 results were driven by a small number of enforcement cases, which yielded the majority of the 8.3 million pounds addressed.
GOAL 5: ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
982

-------
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY

Human
Health Risk
Assessment
Human
Health and
Ecosystems
Research
Performance Measures
(PM H83) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of HHRA Technical Support Documents.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
100
FY 2010
Target
90
Actual
100
CR
2011
Target
90
FY 2012
Target
90
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H29) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of public health outcomes long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H30) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of mechanistic data long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H31) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H32) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the susceptible subpopulations long-term
goal.
100
100
100
64
100
100
Percent
RESEARCH
983

-------

Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
             Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
             The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
             output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
             making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
             Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H26) 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.
16.5

N/A

No Target
Established

N/A

No Target
Established

No Target
Established

Percent

             Additional Information: Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of externally peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's research avoids or confirms the
             use of default assumptions by the total number of externally peer-reviewed risk assessments produced by EPA during that period. For the purposes of this calculation,
             ORD's products include both EPA-authored and EPA-funded reports.
(PM 120) Percentage of Ecological research publications
in "high-impact" journals.

21.3

Data
Available
November
2012
No Target
Established

Biennial

No Target
Established

23.3

Percent

             Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
             journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
             Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
             the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
             research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
(PM 121) 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.

100



100



100



88



100



100



Percent


             Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
             The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
             output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
             making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
             Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.



(PM 122) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for
environmental forecasting tools and methods to forecast
100


93


100


100


100


100





RESEARCH
984

-------

Research
Homeland
Security
Rpspnrrh
Performance Measures
the ecological impacts of various actions.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit

Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM 123) 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.
100
93
100
100
100
100
Percent
At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan). The program strives to
complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual output measures, ORD
has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when making modifications.
Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H72) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of efficient and effective clean-ups and safe
disposal of contamination wastes.
100
85
100
100
100
90
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H73) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of water security initiatives.
100
100
100
100
100
90
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H66) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
100
100
100
92
100
100
Percent
RESEARCH
985

-------

Water
Quality
Research
Land
Protection
and
Performance Measures
WQRP long-term goal #1) delivered
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit

Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H68) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #2) delivered
100
86
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H70) Percentage of planned outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal #3) delivered
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM H92) Percentage of WQRP publications in high
impact journals.
No Target
Established
Biennial
15.7
Data
Unavailabl
e
15.7
16.7
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
(PM H89) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the manage material streams, conserve
resources and appropriately manage waste long-term
goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports on
RESEARCH
986

-------
Restoration
Research:
Drinking
Water
Research:
Global
Performance Measures
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual
CR
2011
Target
FY 2012
Target
Unit
technologies, methods, and models to manage material streams and reduce uncertainty in assessments. Additional details are described in the MYP.
(PM H90) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the mitigation, management and long-term
stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan (MYP). Outputs in support of this long-term goal include reports,
technologies, methods, and models related to the characterization and remediation of contaminated sites. Additional details are described in the MYP.
(PM H87) Percentage of Land publications in high
impact journals.
No Target
Established
Biennial
26.7
Data
Unavailabl
e
26.7
111
Percent
Additional Information: High impact journals are an indication of quality and influence. This measure evaluates the percentage of Land publications that are accepted
within these prestigious journals and their subsequent impact on the field. The criteria and the 'impact factor' data rankings for this metric are provided by Thomson's
Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Each analysis will evaluate the Land publications from the last ten year period, and will be timed to match the cycle for the expert peer
review panel (BOSC).
(PM 134) Percentage of planned risk management
research products delivered to support EPA's Office of
Water, Regions, water utilities, and other key
stakeholders to manage public health risk.
100
93
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP's long term goal 1, which supports the Office of Water
(OW) in rule implementation, simultaneous compliance, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk management decisions. ORD's work under this goal also supports OW,
regions, states, utilities, and key stakeholders in protecting sources of drinking water, managing water availability, improving water infrastructure sustainability, increasing
water and energy use efficiency, and responding to short and long-term water resource impacts of environmental stressors such as climate change, population growth and
land use changes.
(PM 135) Percentage of planned methodologies, data,
and tools delivered in support of EPA's Office of Water
and other key stakeholders needs for developing health
risk assessments under the SDWA.
100
100
100
86
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: The outputs tracked by this measure demonstrate progress towards completing DWRP's long term goal 1, which primarily supports the Office of
Water in decisions relating to: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), regulating/not regulating contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), the
six year review, and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. ORD's work under this goal also supports regions and key stakeholders in meeting simultaneous
compliance requirements while also aiding risk assessors in developing risk assessments that inform regulatory decisions.
(PM H77) Percentage of Global publications in high
impact journals.
24.6
Data
Available
November
No Target
Established
Biennial
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
Percent
RESEARCH
987

-------

Change
Research:
Pesticides
and Toxics
Research:
Clean Air
Rpsparrh!
Performance Measures

Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual
2011
FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit

Additional Information: The criteria and the "impact factor" rankings will be provided using "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
(PM H79) Percentage of planned outputs delivered.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs will be outlined in the program's revised Multi-Year Plan. This measure will track progress toward completing those
milestones across the program.
(PM 106) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal one.
100
100
100
88
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year.
(PM 108) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal two.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year.
(PM 110) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting
its planned annual outputs. The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year.
(PM 112) Percent of SP2 publications in "high impact"
journals.
No Target
Established
Biennial
37.2
Data Avail
11/2011
37.2
38.2
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors.
(PM H35) Percent planned actions accomplished toward
the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science
that supports standard setting and air quality
management decisions. (Research)
100
100
100
80
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: Beginning in FY 2008, this measure will track the program's success in completing its planned outputs on time. Prior to FY 2008, the measure
tracked success in completing both planned outputs and planned actions in response to independent review recommendations.
(PM 128) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
RESEARCH
988

-------

Sustainability
Performance Measures
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-
identified and developed metrics to quantitatively assess
environmental systems for sustainability.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target

FY 2012
Target

Unit

Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM 129) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt ORD-
developed decision support tools and methodologies.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM 130) Percentage of planned outputs delivered in
support of STS's goal that decision makers adopt
innovative technologies developed or verified by ORD.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: At the end of the fiscal year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs (detailed in the program's Multi-Year Plan).
The program strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs. To ensure the ambitiousness of its annual
output measures, ORD has better formalized the process for developing and modifying program outputs, including requiring that ORD programs engage partners when
making modifications. Involving partners in this process helps to ensure the ambitiousness of outputs on the basis of partner utility. In addition, EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) periodically reviews programs' goals and outputs and determines whether they are appropriate and ambitious.
(PM 131) Percentage of Science and Technology for
Sustainability (STS) publications in "high impact"
journals.
35.3
35.4
No Target
Established
Biennial
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
Percent
Additional Information: This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published in prestigious
journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal
Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). This "high impact" metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that
research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews
RESEARCH
989

-------
PERFORMANCE - ENABLING AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS




NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT


Performance Measures
(PM 007) Percent of GS employees (DEU) hired within
80 calendar days.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY 2010
Target

Actual

CR
2011
Target
15
FY 2012
Target
20
Unit
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2009, 10.7 %og GS employees (DEU) were hired on average in 189.2 days.
(PM 008) Percent of GS employees (Other than DEU)
hired within 80 calendar days




23
25
Percent
Additional Information: In FY 2009, 14.6% of GS employees (other than DEU) were hired on average in 163 days.
(PM 009) Increase in number and percentage of certified
acquisition staff (1 102)





335,80
Number, Percent
Additional Information: There were 304 GS-1 102 Staff on board as of July 26, 2010. There were 240 GS-1 102 Staff, 78.9%, certified as of September 2, 2010.
(PM 010) Cumulative percentage reduction in
GreenHouse Gas (GHG) Scopes 1 & 2 emissions.





5
Percent
Additional Information: For FY 2009, Scope 1 emissions were 34,242 MTCO2e and Scope 2 emissions were 109,538 MTCO2e.
(PM 098) Cumulative percentage reduction in energy
consumption.
12
18
15
18.3
18
21
Percent
Additional Information: On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order 13423, "Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation
Management," requiring all Federal Agencies to reduce their Green House Gas intensity and 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.
                                           990

-------
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION


Performance Measures
(PM 052) Number of major EPA environmental systems
that use the CDX electronic requirements enabling faster
receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
50
Actual
55
FY 2010
Target
60
Actual
60
CR
2011
Target
60
FY 2012
Target
72
Unit
Systems
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 . Prior to that there were no data flows using CDX.
(PM 053) States, tribes and territories will be able to
exchange data with CDX through nodes in real time,
using standards and automated data-quality checking.
60
59
65
69
65
80
Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 . Prior to that there were no nodes for states and tribes.
(PM 054) Number of users from states, tribes,
laboratories, and others that choose CDX to report
environmental data electronically to EPA.
130,000
184,109
210,000
231,700
210,000
215,000
Users
Additional Information: Zero. The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001 . Prior to that there were no users.
(PM 408) Percent of Federal Information Security
Management Act reportable systems that are certified
and accredited.
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Additional Information: FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to Federal agencies and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to strengthen information
system security. The continued goal, as required by FISMA, is for the Agency to achieve a continuous 100% compliance status with Certification and Accreditation (C&A)
of all reportable systems.
                                             991

-------
NPM: INSPECTOR GENERAL


Performance Measures
(PM 35A) Environmental and business actions taken for
improved performance or risk reduction.
Performance Data
FY 2009
Target
318
Actual
272
FY 2010
Target
334
*ARRA:20
Actual
391
CR
2011
Target
334
*ARRA:50
FY 2012
Target
375
Unit
Actions
Additional Information: The baseline is a moving averge for the three most recent years. For the period concluding with fiscal year 2010, the baseline is 375 actions. *The
program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and CR 201 1
Target.
(PM 35B) Environmental and business
recommendations or risks identified for corrective
action.
903
983
903
*ARRA:90
945
903
*ARRA:110
950
Recommendations
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 865 environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective actions.
The baseline was adjusted to reflect an average of the actual reported results for the period FY 2006-2008. The baseline has generally decreased to reflect the transfer of
DCAA audit oversight from the OIG directly to the EPA, and a significant gap between the OIG ceiling and actual staffing levels. *The program which this measure
supports receives funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and CR 201 1 Target.
(PM 35C) Return on the annual dollar investment, as a
percentage of the OIG budget, from audits and
investigations.
120
150
120
30
120
110
Percent
Additional Information: The baseline reflects potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of OIG budget from identified opportunities for savings, questioned
costs, fines, recoveries and settlements. The baseline is a moving average for the three most recent years. For the period concluding with fiscal year 2010, the baseline is
112%.
(PM 35D) Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud
prevention actions.
80
95
75
*ARRA:3
115
80
*ARRA:8
85
Actions
Additional Information: In FY 2009 the OIG established a revised baseline of 80 criminal, civil and administrative actions, which has remained constant over time. *The
program which this measure supports receives funds from ARRA. The additional incremental results expected from ARRA funds are noted in its FY 2010 and CR 201 1
Target.
                                            992

-------
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION


The  data verification and validation has been  updated from 2011  to reflect changes in
performance measures.

The complete FY 2012 data verification and validation is available at:

http ://www. epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2012.htm
                                        993

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Appendix A

Coordination with Other Federal Agencies	996
   Environmental Programs	996
   Enabling Support Programs	1030
Major Management Challenges	1038
EPA User Fees	1063
Working Capital Fund	1067
Acronyms	1068
STAG Categorical Program Grants	1073
   Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses	1073
Program Projects by Program Area	1083
Expected Benefits of the President's E-Government Initiatives	1102
Superfund Special Accounts	1109
FY 2011 High Priority Performance Goals	1111
EPA IG Comments on FY 2012 Budget	1113
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act	1116
                                      994

-------
995

-------
                       Coordination with Other Federal Agencies

                               Environmental Programs

Goal 1- Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality

Objective: Address Climate Change

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 will be responding to the President's directive to
work with NHTSA to develop a coordinated national program that will set further standards to
improve fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017
and later. EPA is broadening its public information transportation choices campaign as a joint
effort with DOT. EPA coordinates with each of the above-mentioned agencies to ensure that our
programs are complementary and in no way duplicative.

This coordination is  evident in work recently completed by an interagency task force, including
representatives from the Department of State, EPA, DOE, USDA, DOT, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB),  Department of Commerce, United States Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP), NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, to prepare the Fifth 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 Fifth  National
Communication describes policies and measures (such as ENERGY STAR) 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 2010.  The  "U.S. Climate Action Report 2010:  Fifth  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/usa_nc5.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.
                                         996

-------
The Agency coordinates its global change research with other federal agencies through the US
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).1

Objective: Improve Air Quality

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 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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),  and U.S.  Forest  Service 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 PM monitoring system is an  example of  the  close coordination of efforts
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 work to
further  distribute  NASA  satellite  products   and  National   Oceanic   and Atmospheric
Administration  (NOAA) air quality forecast products to Regions,  states, local agencies, and
Tribes  to provide a better  understanding of air quality on a day-to-day basis and to assist with
PM forecasting.   EPA also will work with NASA to develop  a better understanding of PM
formation using satellite data.   EPA works with  the  Department of the Army on advancing
emission measurement technology and with NOAA for meteorological support for our modeling
and monitoring efforts. EPA collects real-time ozone and PM measurements from State and local
agencies, which  are then sent to NOAA to both feed the Air Quality Forecast model and offer
initial verification of its results.

To better understand the magnitude, sources, and causes of mobile source pollution, EPA works
with the Department of Energy (DOE)  and  DOT to fund  research projects.  A  program to
characterize exhaust emissions from light-duty gasoline vehicles is being co-funded by DOE and
DOT. Other DOT mobile  source projects include TRANSEVIS (TRansportation ANalysis and
SEVIulation 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) 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, and other programs targeted to  reduce air toxics from mobile
 For more information, see .
                                          997

-------
sources are coordinated with DOT.  (These partnerships can involve policy assessments and
toxic emission reduction strategies in different regions of the country.) EPA also is working with
the National  Highway  Transportation  Administration  and the USDA  on greenhouse gas
transportation rules. EPA continues to work with DOE, DOT, and other agencies as needed on
the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy  Independence and Security
Act of 2007.

To develop air pollutant emission factors and emission estimation algorithms for aircraft, ground
equipment, and military vehicles, EPA has partnered with the Department  of Defense.  This
partnership will provide for the joint undertaking of air-monitoring/emission factor research and
regulatory implementation.

To reduce air toxics emissions  that may inadvertently increase  worker exposure, 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 for both toxic and  criteria  air pollutants.  To assess
atmospheric deposition and characterize ecological effects, EPA works with NOAA, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife  Service (USFWS), the  National Park Service, the U.S. Geological  Survey
(USGS), the USDA, and the U.S. Forest Service.

EPA 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.  EPA is a partner with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in the development of the National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network,
providing air quality indicators as well as air pollution health effects expertise.

To determine  the extent  to which agricultural activities  contribute  to air pollution,  EPA will
continue to work closely with the USDA 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 in 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 complements  EPA's  programs  on
children's health, Trade and the  Environment, and trans-boundary  air pollution.  In addition,
EPA partners  with other organizations worldwide, including the United Nations Environment
Programme, the European Union,  the Organization for Economic Development and  Co-
operation,  the United Nations  Economic  Commission for Europe,  the North  American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the
                                          998

-------
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities, and our air quality colleagues in Canada, Mexico, Europe,
China, and Japan.

EPA works closely, through a variety of mechanisms, with a broad range of federal, state, tribal,
and local  government agencies, industry, non-profit organizations, and individuals, as well  as
other nations, to promote more effective approaches to identifying and solving indoor air quality
problems. At the federal level, EPA works closely with several departments or agencies:

    •  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop and coordinate 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 including radon;
    •  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.

EPA coordinates its air quality research with  other federal agencies through the Subcommittee
on Air Quality Research2 of the NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources and
Sustainability  (CENRS).   The Agency and NIEHS co-chaired  the subcommittee's Particulate
Matter Research Coordination Working Group, which produced a strategic plan3 for federal
research  on the health  and environmental effects, exposures,  atmospheric processes,  source
characterization and control of fine airborne particulate matter.  The Agency also is a charter
member of NARSTO,4 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.

EPA collaborates  with  DOE, USGS,  and  the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)5  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
 For more information, see .
2

3 For more information, see .
4 For more information, see .
5 For more information, see .
                                           999

-------
member  states  of the Arctic Council—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland,  Norway,  Russia,
Sweden,  and the U.S.

Objective: Restore the Ozone Layer

EPA works very closely with the Department of State and other federal agencies in international
negotiations among Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
and in developing the implementing regulations. While the environmental goal of the Montreal
Protocol  is to  protect the  ozone layer,  the  ozone depleting substances  it controls also  are
significant greenhouse gases.  Therefore, this work also  protects the Earth's climate  system.
According to a 2007 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,6
chemical controls implemented under the Montreal Protocol will - by 2010 -  have delayed the
onset of serious climate effects by a decade. EPA works on several multinational environmental
agreements to simultaneously  protect the ozone layer  and climate system, including working
closely with the Department of State and other Federal  agencies, including OMB,  OSTP, CEQ,
USD A, FDA, Commerce, NOAA, and NASA.

EPA works with other agencies, including the Office of the United States Trade Representative
and Department of Commerce, to analyze potential trade implications in stratospheric protection
regulations that affect imports and exports. EPA leads a task force with the Department of Justice
(DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Treasury, and other agencies to
curb the illegal  importation of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Illegal import of ODS has the
potential  to prevent the United States from meeting the goals of the Montreal Protocol to restore
the ozone layer.

EPA has continued discussions with DOD to assist in the effective transition from  ODS and
high-GWP substitutes to a suite of substitutes with lower global warming potential (GWPs).

EPA works with USDA and the Department of State to facilitate research, development, and
adoption  of alternatives to methyl bromide. EPA collaborates with these agencies to prepare
U.S. requests  for critical use exemptions of methyl bromide. EPA is providing input to USDA
on rulemakings for methyl bromide-related programs. EPA also consults with USDA on
domestic methyl bromide needs.

EPA coordinates closely with Department of State and FDA to ensure that sufficient supplies of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are available for the production of life-saving metered-dose inhalers
for the treatment  of asthma and other lung diseases. This partnership between EPA and FDA
combines the critical goals of protecting public health and limiting damage to the stratospheric
ozone layer.

EPA's Sun Wise program works with the National Weather Service (NWS) to coordinate the UV
Index, a  forecast of the next day's ultraviolet radiation levels, which helps people determine
appropriate sun-protective behaviors.   The SunWise program also collaborates with the  CDC
when developing new  sun  safety and skin  cancer prevention  resources, including a shade
6 Guus J. M. Velders, Stephen O. Andersen, John S. Daniel, David W. Fahey, and Mack McFarland;
The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting Climate; PNAS 2007 104:4814-4819; published online before print
March 8, 2007; doi:10.1073/pnas.0610328104.
                                          1000

-------
planning guide,  state-specific skin cancer fact sheets, and other school- and community-based
resources.  SunWise  collaborates with  state  and local  governments through the  SunWise
Communities program.  SunWise is  a  successful environmental and health education program
that teaches children  and their caregivers how to  protect  themselves from overexposure to the
sun through the use of classroom, school, and community-based components. More than 22,000
schools have received SunWise  teaching materials—reaching more than one  million students
over the life of the program.  The most  recent study of the program, conducted in 2006-2007,
found that for every dollar invested in SunWise, between approximately $2 and $4 in medical
care costs  and productivity losses are  saved,  and  concluded that from a cost/benefit and cost-
effectiveness perspective, it is worthwhile to educate children about sun safety.7

EPA coordinates with NASA and NOAA to monitor the  state of the  stratospheric ozone layer
and  to  collect  and analyze  UV data,  including science assessments that  help  the  public
understand  what the world may have  looked like  without the  Montreal Protocol  and  its
amendments.8 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 works with DOE on GreenChill9 and Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)10 efforts. The
GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA  cooperative alliance with the
supermarket industry and other stakeholders to promote advanced technologies, strategies, and
practices that reduce refrigerant charges and emissions of ozone-depleting substances and
greenhouse gases. EPA's RAD Program is a partnership program that protects the ozone layer
and reduces emissions of greenhouse gases through the recovery of ozone-depleting chemicals
from old refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers.

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: Reduce Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation

EPA works primarily with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Energy
(DOE), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on multiple radiation protection issues.
EPA has ongoing planning and guidance discussions with DHS on Protective Action Guidance
and general emergency  response activities,  including exercises responding to nuclear related
incidents.  As the regulator of DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility, EPA has to
continually coordinate oversight activities with DOE to keep the facility operating in compliance
with its regulations. EPA also works with the Department  of Transportation (DOT) on initiatives
to promote the use of non-nuclear density gauges for highway paving.  EPA also is working with
tribes to locate and clean up radioactive wastes produced from uranium mining  that contaminate
tribal water resources with radionuclides  and heavy metals, while identifying and providing new
7 Jessica W. Kyle, James K Hammitt, Henry W. Lim, Alan C. Geller, Luke H Hall-Jordan, Edward W. Maibach,
Edward C. De Fabo, Mark C. Wagner; "Economic Evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise
Program: Sun Protection Education for Young Children." Pediatrics, Vol. 121 No. 5 May 2008, pp. el074-e!084
8 The Ozone Layer: Ozone Depletion, Recovery in a Changing Climate, and the "World Avoided;" Findings and Summary of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.4; November 2008.
9 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/greenchill
10 For more information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/partnerships/rad


                                           1001

-------
sources of clean drinking water for these at-risk communities.  EPA also works with NRC and
DOE on the  development of state-of-the-art tracking systems for radioactive  sources in U.S.
commerce and the prevention of radioactive contaminated metals and products from entering the
United States.

For  emergency preparedness purposes, EPA  coordinates closely with other federal agencies
through the Federal Radiological  Preparedness Coordinating Committee and other coordinating
bodies.  EPA participates in planning and implementing table-top and field exercises including
radiological  anti-terrorism activities,  with the NRC, DOE, Department of  Defense (DOD),
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and DHS.

EPA works closely with other federal agencies when developing radiation policy guidance under
its Federal Guidance authority.   This authority  was transferred to EPA from the Federal
Radiation Council  in  1970 and  tasks the Administrator with  making  radiation  protection
recommendations  to  the  President.    When  signed by the President,  Federal  Guidance
recommendations are addressed  to all Federal agencies  and are published  in the  Federal
Register. Risk managers at all levels of government use this information to assess health risks
from radiation exposure and  to  determine appropriate  levels for clean-up of radioactively
contaminated sites.  EPA's radiation science is widely relied on and is the objective foundation
for EPA, other federal agencies and  states  to develop  radiation risk management  policy,
standards and guidance.

EPA is a charter  member and co-chairs  the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation
Standards (ISCORS).   ISCORS was created at the direction of Congress.  Through quarterly
meetings and the activities of its six subcommittees, member agencies are kept informed of
cross-cutting  issues related  to  radiation  protection,  radioactive waste  management,  and
emergency preparedness  and response.   ISCORS also  helps coordinate  a U.S. response to
radiation-related issues internationally, such as the  recent proposed revision of the Basic Safety
Standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Promoting international assistance, EPA serves as an expert member of the International Atomic
Energy  Agency's (IAEA)  Environmental  Modeling  for Radiation Safety,  Naturally-Occurring
Radioactive Materials Working Group.  Additionally, EPA remains an active contributor to the
Organization  for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Nuclear  Energy Agency
(NEA).  EPA serves on both the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and
the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH).  Through the RWMC, EPA
is  able  to exchange information  with other NEA  member countries on the management and
disposal of high-level  and transuranic waste.  Through participation on  the  CRPPH and its
working groups, EPA has been  successful in  bringing a U.S. perspective  to international
radiation protection policy.
                                          1002

-------
Goal 2- Protecting America's Waters

Objective: Protect Human Health

Collaboration with Public and Private Partners on Critical Water Infrastructure Protection

EPA coordinates with other federal agencies, primarily Department  of Homeland Security
(DHS),  Centers for Disease  Control  (CDC), Food and  Drug Administration (FDA) and
Department of Defense (DoD), on biological, chemical,  and radiological contaminants of high
concern, and how to detect and respond to their presence in drinking water and wastewater
systems. A  close  linkage with the  FBI and  the Intelligence  Analysis Directorate  in  DHS,
particularly with respect to ensuring the timely dissemination of threat information through
existing communication networks, will be continued.  The Agency is strengthening its working
relationships with the Water 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.

In 2012, EPA will continue to work with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) to  refine
coordination processes among federal partners engaged in providing emergency response support
to the water sector. These efforts will include refining existing standard operating procedures,
participating in  cross-agency training opportunities, and planning multi-stakeholder water  sector
emergency response exercises.  A significant effort of 2012 will be determining  how USAGE
and EPA are to clarify their roles and responsibilities under the new National Disaster Recovery
Framework.

Geologic Sequestration

EPA coordinates with federal  agencies to plan and obtain research-related data,  to coordinate
regulatory programs, and to coordinate implementation  of  regulations to protect underground
sources  of drinking water during  geologic sequestration (GS) activities.  EPA works with the
Department  of  Energy (DOE) to plan  research on monitoring, modeling, verification, public
participation, and other topics related to DOE-sponsored GS partnership programs.  EPA also
coordinates with U.S. Geological  Survey (USGS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department
of Interior (DOI), and Department of Transportation (DOT)  to ensure that Safe Drinking Water
Act  (SOWA) regulations for  GS  sites  are  appropriately coordinated  with  efforts  to deploy
projects, map geologic sequestration capacity, provide tax incentives for CO2  sequestration, and
manage the movement of CO2 from capture facilities to GS sites.

Collaboration with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

EPA and USGS have established an IA to coordinate  activities and information exchange  in the
areas of unregulated  contaminants occurrence, the  environmental  relationships  affecting
contaminant occurrence, protection area delineation methodology, and analytical methods. 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.
                                          1003

-------
Tribal Access Coordination

In 2003, EPA and its federal partners in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and DOT set a very ambitious goal to reduce the number of homes without access to safe
drinking water.   This goal remains ambitious due to the logistical challenges, capital and
operation,  and maintenance costs involved in providing access.  EPA is working with its federal
partners to coordinate spending and address some of the challenges to access on tribal lands, and
expects to make measureable progress on the access issue.

Source Water Protection

EPA is coordinating with USDA and USGS as part of a 3-organization collaborative to support
state and local implementation of source water protection actions.  In addition, EPA works with
USGS on  coordinating mapping of source water areas on a national scale with the  National
Hydrography Database, as well  as working with the USDA and the Department of Education

Data Availability, Outreach and Technical Assistance

EPA coordinates with USGS, USDA (Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS),  Cooperative State Research,  Education,  and Extension Service (CSREES),  Rural
Utilities Service, CDC, DOT, DoD, DOE, DOT (National Park Service  and Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), Land Management, and Reclamation), HHS (Indian Health Service) and  the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Collaboration with Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

CDC is building state capacity by directly assisting state health departments to develop skills and
tools to improve waterborne disease investigation and prevention. EPA is assisting  CDC by
providing  technical  input regarding  drinking water issues.  The two  agencies  also  are
investigating the health  risks associated  with  contaminant  problems  in drinking  water
distribution systems. EPA and CDC regularly share expertise and information on drinking water
related health effects, risk factors, and research.

Collaboration with Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

In 2004, EPA  and FDA issued  a joint consumer advisory about mercury in fish and  shellfish.
The advice  is for women  who might become pregnant; women who  are pregnant; nursing
mothers; and young children.  The single uniform advisory covers  commercially caught fish, as
well as subsistence and recreationally caught fish. EPA works closely with FDA to distribute the
advisory  to  the public.  Additional   information  can  be  found  on  EPA's  website  at
http ://www. epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advice/factsheet.html.

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
                                         1004

-------
notification  programs.   These programs must  be  consistent  with guidance  published  by
EPA:.,"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.

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 priority contaminants
in drinking water.  For example, the CDC  and  NIEHS conduct health effects  and exposure
research. FDA also performs research on children's risks.

Many of these research activities are being conducted in collaboration with EPA scientists. The
private sector, particularly the water treatment industry, is conducting research in such areas as
analytical methods, treatment  technologies,  and  the development and  maintenance of water
resources.  Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the American  Water Works
Association Research Foundation and other stakeholders to coordinate drinking water research.
EPA  also is 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.

Objective: Protect and Restore Watersheds and Aquatic Ecosystems

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 (NRCS, Forest Service, and Agriculture Research Service), DOT (Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Office  of  Surface Mining,  USGS, U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, NOAA, DOT, and DoD (Navy and  USACE).  At
the state level,  agencies  involved in watershed management typically include departments of
natural  resources  or  the environment,  public health agencies,  and forestry and recreation
agencies.  Locally, numerous agencies are involved, including regional planning entities such as
councils of governments,  as well as local departments of environment, health and recreation who
frequently have strong interests in watershed projects.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES)

Since inception of the NPDES program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (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
                                          1005

-------
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 the
Small  Business Administration and  the  Office of Management and  Budget to ensure that
regulatory programs are fair and reasonable. The Agency coordinates with 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 USDA  to implement the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations (AFO Strategy) 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
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) 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)

EPA's SRF program, HUD's  Community Development Block Grant  program,  and  USDA's
Rural Development foster collaboration on jointly funded infrastructure projects through:  (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.  EPA and  USDA Rural  Development partner  to provide coordinated  financial and
technical assistance to tribes.

Monitoring and Assessment of Nation's Waters

EPA works with federal, state and tribal  partners to strengthen water monitoring programs to
support a range of management needs and to develop tools to improve how we manage and share
water data and report environmental results.  EPA's Monitoring and Assessment Partnership is a
forum  for  EPA,  states, tribes  and interstate organizations to collaborate on  key  program
directions for assessing the condition of the nation's waters in a  nationally consistent and
representative manner.  EPA is co-chair, along with USGS, of the National Water Quality
                                          1006

-------
Monitoring Council  (NWQMC),  a  national forum for scientific discussion  of strategies and
technologies to improve water quality monitoring and data sharing.   The council membership
includes  other  federal agencies,  state and  tribal  agencies, non-governmental  organizations,
academic institutions, and the private sector.

Federal Agency Partnerships on Impaired Waters Restoration Planning

The Federal  Government owns  about  29.6 percent  of the  land  in the United  States and
administers over 90%  of these public lands through four agencies:  Forest Service, USFWS,
National  Park Service  and BLM.  In managing these  extensive public lands,  federal agencies
have a substantial influence on the protection and restoration of many  waters of the U.S.   Land
management agencies'  focus on water issues has increased significantly, with the Forest Service,
USFWS, and BLM all initiating new water quality and watershed protection efforts. EPA has
been conducting joint national assessments with these agencies to enhance watershed protection
and quantify  restoration needs on federal lands. National assessments of USFWS and Forest
Service properties  have already documented the extent and type of impaired waters on these
agencies' lands, developed GIS databases, reported national summary statistics, and developed
interactive reference products (on any scale, local to national), accessible to staff throughout the
agencies.  Similar joint assessments  are planned with the other  major  federal land management
agencies. These assessments have already influenced the agencies in positive ways.  The Forest
Service  and  the  USFWS  have performance  measures  that  involve impaired  waters,  now
coordinated with the same EPA baseline.  The Forest Service used their national assessment data
to institute improvements in a national  monitoring and best  management practices training
program. Also, under an MOA between EPA and Forest Service, numerous aquatic restoration
projects have been jointly funded and carried out. The USFWS is using their national assessment
data to develop a $10M - 20M out-year budget  initiative concerning water conservation, quality,
and quantity  monitoring and management in the National  Wildlife Refuge System,  and also
using the assessment in National Fish Hatcheries System planning.  Further, EPA assessments
and datasets made significant contributions to the government-wide National Fish Habitat Action
Plan (NFHAP) 2010 national assessment offish habitat condition.

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 USD A, which has a
key  role in  reducing sediment  loadings through  its  continued  implementation  of the
Environmental  Quality Incentives   Program,  Conservation   Reserve  Program,  and  other
conservation programs.  USDA also plays a major role in reducing nutrient discharges through
these same programs and through activities related to the AFO Strategy. EPA also will continue
to work  closely with the  Forest  Service and  BLM especially on  the vast public lands that
comprise 29.6 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 also will 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
                                          1007

-------
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.

Marine Pollution Prevention

EPA works  closely with the U.S.  Coast Guard (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 treaties controlling discharges from vessels.
EPA will continue to work closely with the USCG,  Alaska and  the Cruise Lines International
Association  regarding  regulatory  and non-regulatory  approaches  to  managing wastewater
discharges from cruise ships under Title XIV.  Also, EPA will continue  to work with the USCG
in the  development  of best management practices  and discharge standards under the Clean
Boating Act. Additionally, EPA will work with the USCG as EPA considers whether to revise
its vessel sewage standards.

Regarding dredged material management, EPA will continue to work closely with the USAGE
on standards for permit review, as well as site selection/designation and monitoring. EPA also
will continue to participate in site visits and the review of clean-up plans for individual Navy and
Maritime Administration vessel-to-reef projects.

EPA works closely with a number of other federal agencies to prepare reports as well as review
reports to Congress from other agencies.  More specifically, EPA works 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 2008 EVIDCC Report to Congress.
EPA also will continue  to participate  on  an interagency working group tasked to review and
make recommendations in a report to Congress on best management practices for the storage and
disposal of obsolete vessels owned or operated by the  Federal Government.

EPA  also  participates  on  the Committee  on Marine  Transportation  Systems regarding
environmental issues such as  dredging and ship channel  configuration, as well as reducing
pollutant sources during operations and cargo handling.

The  Agency works with the Department  of State,  NOAA,  USCG, Navy, and other federal
agencies in  developing the technical basis  and policy  decisions with  respect to international
treaties concerning marine antifouling systems, invasive species, operational discharges from
vessels, and  disposal  of waste at sea. EPA also works with federal agencies in addressing land-
based sources of marine pollution in the Gulf of Mexico and wider Caribbean Basin.

EPA chairs  the intergovernmental Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task
Force (Gulf  Hypoxia Task Force) and is responsible for overseeing implementation of the 2008
Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan.  Also, EPA is  a  member of the Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources  (CENR) which  coordinates the research  activities among federal agencies to
assess the impacts of nutrients and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
                                          1008

-------
National Estuary Program

The National Estuary Program (NEP) is comprised of 28 non-profit entities with multiple and
diverse  partners that implement a  long-term  comprehensive conservation management plan
unique to their estuarine watershed.  The plans list priority actions that NEP will take to address
the estuary's priority problems.  They also identify the role that partners will play to implement
each priority action.  Effective implementation of the management plans depends to a great
extent on the long-term commitment, collaboration, and involvement of federal and state agency
partners.  Federal partners  that are typically engaged  in management plan implementation
include  EPA's Office of Water; NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserves, Sea Grant, and
Habitat  Protection and Restoration Programs; the USFWS's Coastal Program; and the USDA's
NRCS  and  Forest  Service.  Other NEP  partners include state natural resource agencies;
municipal government  planning  agencies  and  water utilities;  regional  planning agencies;
universities; industry; non-governmental organizations, and community members.

Under   a Memorandum  of Agreement  between EPA and  NOAA, EPA and NOAA  are
collaborating to enhance coastal managers'  capacity to adapt to climate change and to become
more resilient.  Collaborative efforts include designing  and presenting workshops  on how to
develop local climate adaptation strategies;  providing information to coastal managers like  the
National Estuary  Program Directors and local planners on incorporating climate change into
local decision making about ecosystem restoration; identifying climate change indicators in order
to monitor and assess trends in local  water quality and living resource conditions;  and enhancing
local land trusts' capacity to integrate climate adaptation strategies into their land conservation
planning.

National Ocean Policy

EPA will support implementation  of the Executive  Order that  establishes the Nation's first
comprehensive national  policy for stewardship of the ocean, U.S. coasts and the Great  Lakes.
The Executive Order  strengthens  ocean governance  and coordination,  establishes guiding
principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for effective coastal and
marine spatial planning.

Wetlands

EPA, USFWS, USACE, NOAA, USGS,  USD A, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
currently coordinate on  a range of wetlands activities.  These activities include: studying and
reporting on wetlands trends in the U.S., diagnosing causes of coastal wetland loss, updating and
standardizing the digital  map of the nations'  wetlands,  statistically  surveying the condition of the
Nation's wetlands,  and  developing methods for better protecting wetland  function. Coastal
wetlands remain a focus area of current interagency wetlands collaboration. The agencies meet
monthly and are conducting a series  of  coastal wetlands reviews  to  identify  causes and
prospective tools and approaches to address the 59,000-acre-per-year loss USFWS and NOAA
documented in a 2008 report. Additionally,  EPA and the USACE work very closely together in
implementing the wetlands regulatory program under CWA Section 404. Under the regulatory
program, the agencies coordinate closely on overall implementation of the permitting decisions
                                          1009

-------
made annually under Section 404 of the CWA, through the headquarters offices as well as the
ten EPA Regional Offices and 38 USAGE District Offices.  The agencies also coordinate closely
on policy development and litigation.  EPA and USAGE are committed to achieving the goal of
no net loss of wetlands under the CWA Section 404 program.

Great Lakes

EPA  is  leading  the member federal  agencies of the Interagency Task  Force11  in the
implementation of a new Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.  Following announcement of the
Initiative in 2009, EPA led development of a FY 2010 - FY 2014 Action Plan (Action Plan)
targeting the most significant environmental problems of the Great Lakes ecosystem. EPA and
the other members  of the Interagency Task Force enter into interagency agreements to fund
activities intended to achieve the  goals,  objectives, and targets of the Action  Plan. This effort
builds upon previous coordination and  collaboration by the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) pursuant  to the mandate in Section 118  of the CWA to  "coordinate  action of the
Agency with the actions of other Federal agencies and state and local authorities..." pursuant to
which GLNPO was  already 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). The Federal Interagency Task Force, created  by EO 13340, is
charged with increasing and  improving  collaboration and  integration among federal programs
involved in Great Lakes environmental activities.  The Great Lakes Interagency  Task Force
coordinates  restoration of the Great Lakes, focusing on outcomes, such as cleaner water and
sustainable fisheries, and targeting measurable results. Coordination by GLNPO  supports the
GLWQA and other efforts to improve  the Great Lakes  and is  leading to implementation of
priority actions  for Great  Lakes  restoration by the  federal  agencies  and their partners.
Coordinative activities to implement the Initiative include:

   •   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;
   •   sediments program work with the states and the USAGE regarding dredging issues;
   •   implementation of the Binational Toxics Strategy via extensive coordination with Great
       Lakes states;
   •   efforts to protect  and  restore the Great Lakes from invasive species, habitat protection
       and restoration with states,  tribes, USFWS, and NRCS; and
   •   coordination 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  is a partnership of several federal agencies,  states,  local
governments,  nongovernmental  organizations,  academic  institutions,  and  other interested
stakeholders. Only through the coordinated efforts of all of these entities will the preservation
1' The Interagency Task Force includes eleven agency and cabinet organizations: EPA; Department of State, DOI, USDA,
Department of Commerce, HUD, DOT, DHS, Army, Council on Environmental Quality, and HHS.
                                          1010

-------
and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay be achieved. Recognizing this need for coordination,
office directors from the  federal  agencies that form the Chesapeake Bay Program meet on a
regular basis. This group includes representatives of:

   •   Environmental Protection Agency
   •   Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
   •   Department of the Interior, National Park Service
   •   Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
   •   Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service
   •   Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service
   •   Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
   •   Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency
   •   Department of Agriculture, Office  of Environmental Markets
   •   Department of Defense, U.S. Navy
   •   Department of Defense, U.S. Army
   •   Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
   •   Department of Transportation
   •   Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard
   •   Other agencies as deemed appropriate

EPA also is the lead agency representing  the Federal Government on the Chesapeake Executive
Council, which oversees the policy direction of the Chesapeake Bay Program.  In addition to the
EPA Administrator, the Chesapeake Executive Council  consists of the governors of the Bay
states, the mayor of the District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and
the Secretary of Agriculture.

President Obama's  May  2009  Executive  Order  (EO)  on Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration has brought the federal agencies interested in the  Bay and its watershed to a new
level of interagency coordination and cooperation.  The EO established the Federal Leadership
Committee  (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay, which is chaired by EPA and includes USDA,
Department  of Commerce,  DoD, DHS,  DOI, and DOT.  FLC members  are Secretary and
Administrator level executives.  FLC members are represented in more regular meetings of the
Federal Leadership  Committee Designees, which  includes Assistant Secretary and  Assistant
Administrator level executives.  Daily development of deliverables under the EO is conducted by
the Federal Office Directors' group. Working together, the FLC agencies released a coordinated
implementation  strategy on May 12,  2010.  These agencies  also are coordinating on the
development of an annual action plan and  annual progress report that are required by the EO.

Many of the efforts resulting from the EO and described in the implementation  strategy will
necessitate  and  foster  increased  and improved  federal  coordination.   Revitalized efforts  to
improve and account for agricultural best  management practices depend upon cooperation
between  EPA,  USDA,  USGS,  and  others.    EPA   is  participating on the interagency
Environmental Markets Team that is assisting  in the development of a market-based approach
under the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load.  EPA, DOI, and NOAA will expand the
understanding of the toxic  contaminant  problem in the Bay and its  watershed  and develop
contaminant reduction outcomes and strategies.  EPA, DOT, and HUD will provide technical
                                         1011

-------
assistance to communities that undertake development of integrated transportation, housing, and
water infrastructure plans.   The EO strategy includes many other  examples of how federal
agencies are  coordinating their efforts  to  protect and restore the  Chesapeake Bay  and its
watershed.

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  governments;  citizens;  environmental  and  fishery  interests; and,  numerous  federal
departments and  agencies.   Thirteen federal  agencies formed a Gulf of Mexico Regional
Partnership under the leadership of EPA, NOAA, and DOT to provide  support to the  Gulf of
Mexico Alliance, a partnership of the five Gulf states. This federal workgroup includes:

    •   Council on Environmental Quality
    •   National Aeronautics  and Space Administration
    •   National Science Foundation
    •   Army Corps of Engineers
    •   Department of Agriculture
    •   Department of Commerce, NOAA
    •   Department of Defense
    •   Department of Energy
    •   Department of Interior
    •   Department of Health and Human Services
    •   Department of State
    •   Department of Transportation

Through a collaborative approach and integration of federal efforts, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Governors' Action Plan II (2009-2014)  has identified specific actions needed to improve the
health of the Gulf coastal  region and addressed priority issues facing the Gulf with scientific and
technical experts and resource managers to  leverage the resources  needed to support state and
community actions.

Research

The Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS) is 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.
                                          1012

-------
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.

EPA also is working 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, the University of Houston,  Louisiana
Tech University, and the Polytechnic University of New York, on water infrastructure  research.

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).

Community Water Priorities/Urban Waters

In response to early stakeholder feedback,  EPA has been working with senior executives from
eleven federal agencies  to form  an Urban Waters Federal  Partnership, with support from the
White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC).  Agencies include:

•   Department of Interior
•   Department of Agriculture
•   Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
•   Department of Commerce - Economic Development Administration
•   Army Corps of Engineers
•   Department of Transportation
•   Department of Housing and Urban Development
•   Department of Health and Human Services - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
•   Department of Health and Human Services - National  Institute of Environmental Health
    Sciences
•   Corporation for National and Community Service

This partnership seeks to help communities - especially underserved communities - transform
overlooked urban  waters into treasured  centerpieces  and  drivers of  urban revival.   The
partnerships will advance urban  waters goals  of: empowering and  supporting communities in
revitalizing their urban  waters and the surrounding land;  helping  communities  establish and
maintain  safe  and equitable  public access  to their urban waterways; and linking urban water
restoration to  other  community priorities   such  as  employment,  education,  economic
revitalization, housing, transportation, health, safety and quality of life.  To meet these goals, the
                                          1013

-------
partnership will leverage member agencies'  authorities,  resources, expertise and local support.
This federal partnership will advance an action agenda including the selection of Urban Waters
Federal Partnership Pilots for place-based projects, the identification of policy actions needed to
integrate federal support to communities and to remove barriers to local and community action,
and other actions  such  as  sharing information and providing  information on urban waters to
communities in the nation.

Goal 3-Cleaning Up Our Communities

Objective: Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities

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.

Sustainable Communities

EPA will continue to work  through the Partnership  for Sustainable Communities with HUD and
DOT  to  help  improve  access to affordable housing, more transportation options,  and lower
transportation  costs  while protecting  the  environment  in  communities  nationwide.  This
partnership  is coordinating federal housing,  transportation,  water, and other infrastructure
investments to protect the  environment, promote equitable development, and help address the
challenges of climate change. In addition, EPA will also continue work with FEMA to ensure
long-term sustainability considerations are included in post-disaster planning efforts, and work
with NOAA on encouraging sustainable development practice in coastal-communities.  EPA co-
sponsors the Governor's Institute on Community Design with the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA). This program works with governors and their cabinets on challenging issues related
to improving environmental and public health outcomes of growth and development.

Environmental Justice

EPA  will  continue  its work  in   partnership  with other  federal   agencies  to address  the
environmental and public health issues facing communities with environmental justice concerns.
In 2012, the Agency  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.
EPA and its federal partners are utilizing EPA's collaborative problem-solving model, based on
the  experiences  of federal collaborative  partnerships,  to improve  the  federal government's
                                          1014

-------
effectiveness in addressing the environmental  and public health concerns facing communities.
As the lead agency for environmental justice pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA shares its
knowledge and experience and offers  assistance to other federal agencies as they enhance their
strategies to integrate environmental justice into their programs, policies and activities.

U. S. -Mexico Border

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. The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program
represents a successful joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments in working with
the  10 Border States and local communities to improve the region's environmental health,
consistent with the principles of sustainable development. 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.

Research

Research in ecosystems  protection is  coordinated government-wide through the Committee on
Environment, Natural Resources, and  Sustainability (CENRS). EPA actively participates in the
CENRS and all work is fully consistent with, and complementary to, other Committee member
activities.  EPA scientists staff two CENRS Subcommittees: the Subcommittee  on Ecological
Systems (SES) and the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ).  EPA has
                                         1015

-------
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 USD A
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, EPA 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 EPA's ecosystem  research efforts, EPA 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. 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.

EPA expends  substantial effort coordinating its research with other federal  agencies, including
work with DoD in its Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)
and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, DOE and its Office of Health
and Environmental Research. EPA also conducts collaborative laboratory research with DoD,
DOE,  DOT  (particularly  the  USGS),  and  NASA  to  improve characterization  and  risk
management options for dealing with subsurface contamination.

The Agency  also is 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 MOU12 with several other agencies [DOE, DoD, NRC, USGS, NOAA, and USDA]
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.
12 For more information please go to: Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU,
http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
                                          1016

-------
The Agency coordinates its research fellowship programs with other federal agencies and the
nonprofit  sector  through the National  Academies'  Fellowships Roundtable, which meets
biannually.13

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, US AID, USD A, CEQ, and OSTP.

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 and with the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development on the
development and implementation of the National Children's Study.

Objective: Preserve Land

Pollution prevention activities entail coordination  with other federal departments and agencies.
EPA coordinates with the General  Services Administration (GSA) on the use of safer products
for indoor painting and  cleaning,  with the Department of Defense (DoD) on the  use of  safer
paving materials for parking lots, and with the Defense Logistics Agency on safer solvents.  The
program also works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other groups to
develop standards for Environmental Management  Systems.

In addition to  business,  industry, and other non-governmental  organizations, EPA works  with
federal, state, tribal, and local governments to encourage reduced generation and safe recycling
of wastes. Partners in this effort include the Environmental Council of States and the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.

The Federal Government is the single  largest potential source for "green" procurement in the
country, for office products as well as products for industrial use. EPA works with the Office of
Federal Environmental Executive and other federal agencies and departments in advancing the
purchase and use of recycled-content and  other "green"  products.  In particular, the Agency is
currently engaged with other organizations within the Executive Branch to foster compliance
with Executive Order 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
  For more information, see .
                                          1017

-------
management of surplus electronics equipment, with a preference for reuse and recycling. With
these agencies, and in cooperation with  the  electronics industry, EPA and the Office of the
Federal Environmental Executive launched the Federal Electronics Challenge which will lead to
increased reuse and recycling of an array of computers  and other electronics hardware used by
civilian and military agencies.

Objective: Restore Land

Super fund Remedial Program

The  Superfund Remedial program coordinates with several other  federal agencies,  such as
ATSDR and NIEHS, in providing numerous Superfund related services in order to accomplish
the program's mission.   In FY 2012, 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
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.

Superfund Federal Facilities Program

The  Superfund Federal Facilities Program coordinates with  federal agencies, States,  Tribes, 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, DOE, and other federal
agencies  to expedite the cleanup  and transfer of federal  properties.   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 specific Base
Realignment and  Closure (BRAC)  installations affected by the first four rounds of BRAC.  In
addition, EPA is currently in negotiations with DOD to extend BRAC oversight support through
FY 2016.   EPA has signed lAs with the DOE to  expedite the  cleanup and to support DOE's
efforts of reducing the footprint at the  Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge Reservation,  Hanford,
and the Idaho National Laboratory sites using DOE's ARRA funding.  EPA also has signed an IA
with DOE to provide funding for EPA Region 9 to conduct  a radiological study to determine the
radiological contamination in soil and groundwater  at the Santa Susana site. EPA will continue
to provide technical input regarding innovative and  flexible regulatory approaches,  streamlining
of documentation, integration of projects, deletion of sites from the National Priorities List, field
assessments, and development of management documents and processes.
                                          1018

-------
Superfund Financial Responsibility Regulations

EPA currently is developing new regulations that, for the first time, will require facilities in the
hardrock mining  and mineral processing,  chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, and
electric power generation industry to provide appropriate financial responsibility demonstrations
for damage to human health and the environment that may be the result of those manufacturing
activities. This effort will require close coordination with the DOT (BLM) and USDA  (Forest
Service)  related to mining/mineral processing activities on  federal lands, and DoD and DOE
regarding the other industrial facilities that will be potentially impacted.

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, the  Department  of
Transportation, and the Department of State to ensure the safe  movement of domestic and
international shipments of hazardous waste.

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

 States and territories use the LUST Trust Fund in addition to other resources 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 where EPA directly funds oversight and clean-up activities, EPA relies on state agencies
to implement the LUST Program, including overseeing  cleanups  by responsible  parties and
responding to emergency LUST releases. LUST cooperative agreements awarded by EPA are
directly given to the states to assist them in implementing their oversight and programmatic role.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

EPA plays a major role  in reducing the risks that accidental  and intentional releases of harmful
substances and oil pose  to human  health and the environment. 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. 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 DHS, provides for the delivery of
federal assistance to states to help  them deal with the consequences of terrorist events as  well as
                                          1019

-------
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.

Superfund Enforcement (see  Goal 5)
Oil Spills

Under the Oil Spill Program, EPA works with other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA, FEMA, DOT, DOT, DOE, and other
federal agencies and  states,  as  well  as  with local  government  authorities to develop Area
Contingency Plans.  The Department of Justice also provides assistance to agencies with judicial
referrals  when enforcement of  violations  becomes  necessary.  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: Strengthen Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country

EPA  works under two important tribal  infrastructure Memoranda  of Understanding (MOU)
amongst 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 work as partners to improve infrastructure on tribal  lands  and currently focus
efforts on providing access to safe drinking water and basic wastewater facilities to tribes.

The  first, or  umbrella MOU, promotes coordination between  federal  tribal  infrastructure
programs, including financial services, while allowing federal 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.  Under the umbrella  MOU,
for the first time, five federal departments joined together and agreed to work across traditional
program boundaries on tribal infrastructure  issues.   The second  MOU, addressing a specific
infrastructure issue, was created under the umbrella authority and addresses the issue of access to
safe drinking water and wastewater facilities on tribal lands. Currently, the five federal  agencies
are working together  to  develop  solutions for specific geographic  areas of concern  (Alaska,
Southwest), engaging in coordination of ARRA funding, and promoting cross-agency efficiency.
These activities are completed in coordination with federally recognized tribes.

For more information, please see the web link: http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/mous.htm.
                                          1020

-------
Additionally, EPA is continuing to work closely with other federal agencies as well as the
Domestic Policy Council to implement President Obama's directive regarding the tribal
consultation process. The President's November 5th, 2009 Memorandum directs each executive
department to develop a detailed plan to implement Executive Order (EO) 13175, "Consultation
and Coordination with Indian tribal Governments," issued by President Clinton in 2000. Under
EO 13175, "all departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that
have tribal implications, and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government
relationship between the United States and Indian tribes."

On June 9, 2010, EPA released the Proposed EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes. EPA welcomes and continues to respond to comments from tribes on the proposed
policy and plans to release a final policy after publication and comment.

Goal 4 - Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution

Objective:  Chemical and Pesticide Risks

Coordination with  state lead  agencies  and with the USDA provides  added impetus to the
implementation  of  the Certification  and  Training program.    States  also provide essential
activities in  developing and implementing the Endangered Species and  Worker Protection
programs and are involved in numerous special projects and investigations, including emergency
response efforts. The Regions provide technical guidance and assistance to the states and tribes
in the implementation of all pesticide program activities.

EPA  uses  a range of outreach  and coordination approaches  for pesticide  users, agencies
implementing various pesticide programs and projects, and  the general  public. Outreach and
coordination  activities  are essential to effective implementation of regulatory decisions.  In
addition, coordination  activities protect workers and endangered species, provide  training for
pesticide applicators, promote integrated pest management and environmental  stewardship, and
support for compliance through EPA's Regional programs and those of the states and tribes.

In addition to the training  that EPA provides to farm workers and restricted use pesticide
applicators, EPA works with the State Cooperative Extension Services designing and providing
specialized training for various groups.  Such training includes instructing private applicators on
the proper use of personal  protective equipment  and application equipment calibration, handling
spill and injury  situations,  farm  family safety, preventing pesticide spray drift, and pesticide and
container disposal. Other specialized training is provided to public works employees on grounds
maintenance, to pesticide control operators  on proper insect identification, and on weed control
for agribusiness.

EPA coordinates with  and uses information from  a variety of federal,  state  and  international
organizations and agencies in our efforts to  protect  the safety  of  America's  health  and
environment from hazardous or higher risk pesticides.  In May 1991, the USDA implemented the
Pesticide Data Program (PDF) to  collect objective and statistically reliable data  on pesticide
residues on food commodities. This action was in response to public concern about the effects of
                                          1021

-------
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 agencies coordinate review of antimicrobial pesticides. The Agency coordinates
with  USDA/ARS in  promotion and communication  of resistance  management strategies.
Additionally, EPA actively  participates 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.

EPA's objective is to promote  improved health and environmental  protection.  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 (TFCS), 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 collaborates with the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), the CODEX
Alimentarius Commission, the North  American Commission on Environmental  Cooperation
(CEC), the Organization  for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and NAFTA
Commission. These activities  serve  to  coordinate  policies,  harmonize guidelines,  share
information, correct deficiencies, build other nations' capacity to reduce risk, develop strategies
to deal with potentially harmful pesticides and develop greater confidence in the safety of the
food supply.

The nexus of environmental protection and international trade is a priority for EPA engagement.
EPA has played a key role in ensuring trade-related activities sustain environmental protection
since  the 1972 Trade Act mandated inter-agency consultation by the U.S.  Trade Representative
                                         1022

-------
(USTR) on trade policy issues. 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  USTR  to provide advice, guidance  and  clearance to the  USTR  in the
development of U.S. international trade and investment policy.

To  effectively participate in the international  agreements on  Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs), heavy metals, EPA must continue to coordinate with other federal agencies and external
stakeholders, such as Congressional staff,  industry, and environmental groups.   Similarly, the
Agency typically coordinates with  FDA's National Toxicology Program, the  CDC/ATSDR,
NIEHS and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on matters relating to OECD test
guideline harmonization.

EPA also works closely with the Department  of State in leading the technical and policy
engagement for the United States  Government at international negotiations on global mercury.
EPA provided the impetus for UNEP's Global Mercury Program, and the agency continues to
work with developing  countries and  with other developed countries in the context  of that
program.  In addition to the Department of State, EPA collaborates closely with several federal
agencies including DOE  and USGS; and has developed a strong network of domestic private
sector  and non-governmental partners interested in working on this issue. Building on EPA's
coordination and planning with UNEP, the Agency is working closely with all federal partners in
preparation for Rio 2010, which is a follow up to the Earth Summit that took place in Rio de
Janerio in 1992.

EPA is a leader in global  discussions on mercury and was instrumental in the launch of UNEP's
Global Mercury Program, and the agency 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.

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 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.
                                          1023

-------
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 success of EPA's lead program  is due in part to effective coordination with other federal
agencies, states and Indian Tribes through the President's Task Force on Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks to Children.  EPA will continue to coordinate with HUD to  clarify how
new rules may affect existing EPA  and HUD regulatory programs,  and with the FHWA and
OSHA on worker protection issues. EPA will continue to work closely with state and federally
recognized Tribes to ensure that authorized state and tribal programs continue to comply with
requirements established under TSCA, that the ongoing federal  accreditation certification and
training program for lead professionals is administered effectively, and states and tribes adopt the
Renovation and Remodeling and the Buildings and Structures Rules when these rules become
effective.

EPA has a MOU with HUD on coordination of efforts on lead-based paint issues. As a result of
the MOU,  EPA and HUD have co-chaired the President's Task Force since 1997.  There are
fourteen other federal agencies including CDC and DoD on the Task Force. HUD and EPA also
maintain the National Lead Information Center and share enforcement of the Disclosure Rule.

Mitigation of existing risk is a common interest for other federal agencies addressing issues of
asbestos and PCBs.  EPA will continue to coordinate interagency strategies for assessing and
managing potential risks from asbestos and other fibers. Mercury storage and safe disposal also
are 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.

Research

Through EPA's ToxCast™ research efforts, 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.

EPA coordinates its  nanotechnology  research with  other federal agencies through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),14 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 grants15 jointly
with NIOSH, NIEHS, and NSF.
14 For more information, see .
15 For an example, see .
                                          1024

-------
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.

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.

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 also is working with DHS to provide support and
guidance to DHS in the startup of their University Centers of Excellence program. Recognizing
that the DoD has significant  expertise and facilities related  to biological and chemical warfare
agents, EPA 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,  EPA also is  collaborating with CDC.  EPA works with DOE to  access and
support research conducted by DOE's National Laboratories, as well as to obtain data related to
radioactive materials.

In addition to these major collaborations, the NHSRC has relationships with numerous other
Federal  agencies, including the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, FDA, USGS and NIST.  Also, the
NHSRC is working with state and local emergency response personnel to understand better their
needs and build relationships, which will enable the quick deployment of NHSRC products.  In
the water infrastructure arena, the NHSRC is providing information to the Water Information
Sharing Networks program. The NAS has also been engaged to provide advice on the long-term
direction of the water research and technical support program.

Objective: Promote Pollution Prevention

EPA is involved in  a broad range of pollution  prevention (P2)  activities which can yield
reductions in waste generation and energy consumption in  the public and private sectors. For
example, the Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
(EPP) initiative, which implements Executive Orders 12873 and  13101,  promotes the use of
cleaner products by federal agencies.  This is aimed at stimulating demand for the development
of such products by industry.

This effort includes a number of demonstration projects with other federal Departments and
agencies, such as the National Park Service (NPS) (to use Green Purchasing as a tool to achieve
the sustainability goals of the parks), the Department of Defense (DoD) (use of environmentally
                                         1025

-------
preferable  construction  materials),   and  Defense  Logistics   Agency   (identification  of
environmental attributes for products in its purchasing system). The program also is working
within EPA to "green" its own operations. The program also works with the Department of
Commerce's National Institute of Science and Technology (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
Green Suppliers' Network (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 also is working with the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Industrial Technologies Program to provide energy audits and  technical assistance to
these  supply chains.

The Agency is required to review environmental  impact statements and other major actions
impacting the environment and  public health  proposed by  all  federal agencies,  and make
recommendations to the proposing federal agency on how to  remedy/mitigate those impacts.
Although  EPA is required under Section  309  of  the Clean Air  Act (CAA) to review and
comment on proposed federal actions, neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor Section
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), USAGE, DOI (including Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management
Service and National Parks Service), Department of Energy (including the Federal Regulatory
Commission), and the Department of Defense.

Goal  5- Enforcing Environmental Laws

Objective: Address pollution problems through vigorous and  targeted  civil and  criminal
enforcement. Assure compliance with environmental laws.

The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program coordinates closely with the Department
of Justice  (DOJ) on all civil and criminal environmental enforcement matters.   In addition, the
program coordinates with other agencies on specific environmental issues as described herein.

The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program 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 Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) on tribal issues  relative to compliance with environmental laws on tribal
Lands, and with the Small  Business Administration (SBA) on the  implementation of the Small
Business  Regulatory  Enforcement  Fairness Act (SBREFA).   The  program also shares
information with the Internal Revenue  Service (IRS)  on  cases which require defendants to pay
civil penalties, thereby  assisting the IRS in assuring compliance with tax laws.   In addition,  it
collaborates  with the  SBA to maintain  current  environmental  compliance  information at
                                         1026

-------
Business.gov, a website initiated as an e-government initiative in 2004 to help small businesses
comply with government regulations.  The program also works with a variety of federal agencies
including  the Department of Labor  (DOL)  and the IRS to organize a Federal Compliance
Assistance Roundtable to address cross cutting compliance assistance issues. Coordination also
occurs with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) on wetlands issues.

The  United  States  Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources  Conservation  Service
(USDA/NRCS) has a major role in  determining whether areas on agricultural lands meet the
definition  of wetlands for purposes of the Food Security Act.  Civil Enforcement coordinates
with USDA/NRCS on these issues  also.  EPA's Enforcement and  Compliance Assurance
Program also coordinates with USDA on regulation of animal feeding operations and on food
safety issues arising from the misuse of pesticides,  and shares joint jurisdiction with the 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 Food and Drug Administration
(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 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerning enforcement of the  Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) lead-based paint notification requirements.

The  Criminal Enforcement  Program  coordinates with other federal law enforcement agencies
(i.e., Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Customs,  DOL, U.S. Treasury, United States Coast
Guard  (USCG), Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOJ) and with international,  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 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to
provide specialized criminal  environmental  training to  federal, state, local, and tribal  law
enforcement personnel at the Federal Law Enforcement  Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco,
GA.

Under  Executive Order 12088, EPA is directed to  provide technical assistance to other federal
agencies to help ensure their compliance with all  environmental laws.  The Federal Facility
Enforcement Program  coordinates  with  other federal  agencies,  states,  local, and  tribal
governments to ensure  compliance by federal agencies with all environmental  laws.   In FY
2012,  EPA  also will continue its efforts to support the FedCenter, the Federal  Facilities
Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center  (www.fedcenter.gov), which is now  governed
by a board of more than a dozen contributing federal agencies.

The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program 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
                                          1027

-------
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 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program 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 2012,  the program  also will work with its Regions,
states and directly with a number of other federal agencies to improve Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act  (CWA) and other statutory compliance at federal
facilities, which array the full range of Agency  tools to promote compliance in  an effective,
efficient manner.

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 DOJ, 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  the National  Oceanic and   Atmospheric
Administration (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.

Superfund Enforcement
As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability  Act
(CERCLA) and Executive Order 12580, the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  program
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 E.O. 13016, 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.

Under EO 12580, the Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program assists Federal  agencies
in complying with CERCLA.  It ensures that  1) all federal facility sites on the National Priority
List have interagency agreements, also  known as Federal Facility Agreements or FFAs, which
provide enforceable  schedules for the  progression of the  entire  cleanup;  2) these FFAs are
monitored for compliance; 3) federal sites that are transferred to new owners are transferred in an
environmentally responsible manner and 4)  assists Federal facilities in complying with their
                                          1028

-------
cleanup responsibilities. It is this program's responsibility to ensure that federal agencies, by law,
comply with Superfund cleanup obligations "in the same manner and to the  same extent" as
private  entities.   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 the country.
                                          1029

-------
               COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

                              Enabling Support Programs

Office of the Administrator (OA)

The Office of the Administrator (OA) supports the leadership of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) programs and activities to protect human health and safeguard the air, water,
and land upon which life depends.  Several program responsibilities include policy, homeland
security - including intelligence coordination - Congressional and intergovernmental relations,
the Science Advisory Board, children's health, the small business  program,  and regulatory
innovation.

EPA interacts with a number of federal agencies during its rulemaking activities.  Per Executive
Order 12866 - Regulatory Planning  and Review, EPA submits "significant" regulatory actions to
the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) for interagency review prior to signature and
publication in the Federal Register.  Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), EPA submits
rules to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States (head of the
U.S. Government Accountability  Office). EPA  publishes  its regulatory  actions and other
information through the Office of Federal Register. For regulations that may have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number  of small entities, EPA collaborates  with the Small
Business Administration (SBA) and  OMB.

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 (DOC) 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, EPA  co-sponsors 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 (DOI),
and 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 (e.g., economic  valuation  of ecosystem
services, adoption of market mechanisms to achieve environmental goals) and measuring health
and welfare benefits (e.g.,  represent EPA issues in cross-agency group charged with informing
USDA efforts to establish markets for  ecosystem services).

EPA,  working  with USDA and DOE  continues to  evaluate and improve climate change
integrated assessment models and is actively pursuing new research to support the development
of measures of the social damages attributable to Greenhouse Gas  (GHG) emissions.  This
information  is used to generate estimates of the  social cost of carbon (SCC), which enables
federal agencies to better incorporate climate impacts  assessment and estimates of associated
economic damages into policy and regulatory analyses.
                                         1030

-------
EPA  also works with the National Institute of Standards and  Technology  (NIST) and  its
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to help the MEP Centers deliver assistance
on environmental  and energy matters as part of their services  to  small and medium sized
business.  Under the Suppliers'  Partnership for the  Environment program and  its umbrella
program, the Green Suppliers' Network (GSN), EPA provides technical assistance to the process
of "greening" industry supply chains.  The EPA is  also working with DOE's Industrial
Technologies Program to provide  energy audits and technical assistance to these supply chains.
EPA's toolkits  on the integration of environmental and energy  considerations into  "lean
manufacturing" techniques are widely  used  by MEP  centers, and EPA  is assisting centers in
developing their own "sustainable manufacturing" tools and curriculum.  EPA also participates
in interagency activities organized by the Commerce Department's Sustainable Manufacturing
Initiative. The "Lean Manufacturing"  toolkits are also used by the Department of Defense in
training.

The EPA, through the Aging Initiative, is a member of the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-
Related Statistics. The Forum published the 2010 report "Older Americans 2010 Key Indicators
of Well-Being" and  included an environmental indicator on air quality based  on  the National
Ambient Air  Quality  Standards. The mission of the Forum  is to encourage cooperation among
the federal agencies to improve the quality  and utility of the data  on  the aging population.
Through the  Aging Initiative, EPA is  also a member of the Task Force on  Older American
Indians.  The  purpose of the Forum is to  assist tribes funded under Title VI of the  Older
Americans Act.  The Aging Initiative collaborates with other federal agencies  to protect older
adults from environmental  hazards and provide opportunities for  older adults to participate as
environmental stewards in their communities.  The Aging  Initiative  collaborates  with federal
agencies to promote sustainable communities and advocate for changes to the built environment
to promote health and the well-being of elders in their communities.

The Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) provides leadership for cross-Agency efforts
to protect children from exposure to toxins, pollution and other environmental health threats in
their homes,  their  schools, and their communities.  Children are  at greater risk of harm from
exposure to environmental  toxins than  adults because of their unique physiology and behavior
patterns.   The OCHP ensures that children's unique vulnerabilities are carefully considered in
agency policy and regulatory development, and that children's environmental health is central in
our outreach  and public education activities. OCHP works  with other federal  departments and
agencies to coordinate  diverse program and  research efforts to help ensure  that children's
environmental health is protected where they live, learn, work and play.

EPA's Office of Homeland Security (OHS) works closely with many other federal departments
and agencies  to  meet the goals of presidential homeland security directives and plans.  These
efforts include working through the Interagency Policy Committees (TPCs) and other avenues to
ensure that EPA's efforts are integrated into, and  can build upon, the efforts  of other federal
agencies.  OHS also coordinates the development of responses  to  inquiries from  the White
House,  Department  of  Homeland Security  (DHS),  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 through coordination with
other federal agencies.   OHS  also  has a  strong partnership  with  various  elements of the
                                          1031

-------
Intelligence Community and collaborates with them on a weekly, if not daily basis, to ensure that
interagency intelligence-related planning and operational requirements are met. This is achieved
through coordination with 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  National and
Homeland Security Councils.

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  Business  Programs  (OSBP)  works  with   the  Small  Business
Administration  (SBA) and other federal  agencies to  increase  the participation of  small and
disadvantaged businesses in EPA's procurements. OSBP 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  Offices  of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) throughout the federal government. EPA's OSBP
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).   OSBP,  through its  Minority  Academic  Institutions  (MAI)
Program, also works  with the Department of Education and the White House  Initiative on
Historically  Black Colleges and  Universities (HBCU) to increase the institutional capacity of
HBCUs, and to create opportunities for them to work with federal agencies, especially in the area
of scientific research  and  development.   OSBP  coordinates with the  Minority  Business
Development Agency, the  Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense (DoD),
and many other federal agencies to provide outreach to  small  disadvantaged businesses and
Minority-Serving  Institutions throughout the United States  and the  trust territories.   OSBP's
Director is an active participant  in the Federal OSDBU Directors' Council (www.osdbu.gov).
The OSDBU Directors' Council collaborates to support major outreach efforts to  small and
disadvantaged businesses,  SDVOSB,  and minority  academic institutions via  conferences,
business fairs,  and  speaking  engagements. The  OSBP's Asbestos   and  Small  Business
Ombudsman partners with SBA and other federal agencies to ensure small business concerns are
considered  in regulatory  development  and compliance  efforts,  and  to  provide  networks,
resources, tools, and forums for education and advocacy on behalf of small businesses across the
country.

The Environmental Education program which is housed within the Office of External Affairs and
Environmental Education (OEAEE) (formerly the Office of Environmental Education and Office
of Public  Affairs,  respectively) provides leadership  and  support  across EPA, the federal
                                          1032

-------
government, and the nation to promote environmental literacy. OEAEE participates in numerous
federal interagency efforts.  Examples include "Partners in Resource Education" (PRE) which
includes federal land management agencies  such as the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management,  and  National  Park  Service;  NOAA's  Ocean  Education  Workgroup;  and
Department  of Education's Federal  Interagency  Committee  on  Education (FICE).   Other
examples  are  the  Office  of Science Technology and  Policy's  (OSTP)  Subcommittee on
Education relating to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education;
and the U.S. Global Change Research Program's (USGCRP) Education Interagency Workgroup
that focuses  on climate change education and is co-chaired by NOAA and NASA.  OEAEE is
also  supporting interagency projects with the U.S. Forest Service to provide training to their
education partners on implementing quality education programs and developing and applying an
assessment tool for use at nature centers.

Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

OCFO makes active contributions to  standing interagency management committees, including
the Chief Financial Officers Council  focusing  on improving  resources  management and
accountability  throughout  the  federal  government.   OCFO  actively  participates  on the
Performance Improvement Council which coordinates and develops strategic plans, performance
plans,  and performance reports  as  required by law  for the Agency.   In addition,  OCFO
participates in numerous OMB-led E-Gov initiatives such as the  Financial  Management and
Budget Formulation and Execution Lines of Business, and has interagency agreements with DoD
and USDA for processing agency payroll and travel  transactions, respectively.  OCFO also
participates with the Department  of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Census in maintaining the
Federal Assistance Awards Data System  (FAADS). OCFO also coordinates appropriately with
Congress and other  federal agencies,  such as Department of Treasury,  OMB, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), and the General Services Administration (GSA).

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
management, 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;

    •     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; and
                                         1033

-------
    •      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 specific initiatives and policies in all aspects of
           the acquisition system.

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 User's  Group.
EPA also participates in the Federal Demonstration Partnership  to reduce the administrative
burdens associated with research grants.

EPA is working with OMB, GSA, DHS, and the DOC's National  Institute of Standards  and
Technology to implement the Smart Card program.

Office of Environmental Information (OEI)

To support EPA's overall mission, OEI  collaborates with a number of other federal  agencies,
states,  and  tribal governments on a variety of initiatives,  including making  government more
efficient and transparent, protecting human  health and the environment, and  assisting in
homeland security. OEI is primarily involved in the information  technology (IT), information
management (EVI), and information security aspects of the projects it collaborates on.

The  Chief Information Officer's  (CIO)  Council:    The  CIO  Council is the  principal
interagency forum for improving practices in  the design,  modernization,  use, sharing,  and
performance of federal information resources. The Council develops  recommendations for IT
management policies, procedures, and standards; identifies opportunities to  share information
resources; and assesses and addresses the  needs of the federal IT workforce.

E-Rulemaking:  EPA serves as the Program Management Office (PMO) for the eRulemaking
Program. The eRulemaking program's mission addresses two areas:  to improve public  access,
participation in and  understanding of the rulemaking process and to improve the  agencies'
efficiency and effectiveness in promulgating regulations.  The eRulemaking Program maintains a
public  web site, www.Regulations.gov  that enables the  general public to  access and make
comments on various documents that are published in the Federal Register, including proposed
regulations and agency-specific  notices.  The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
the agency-side  of  Regulations.gov,  and enables the  various agencies to  administer public
submissions  regarding  regulatory and  other  documents posted  by  the  agencies on  the
Regulations.gov  web  site.  The increased public access  to the  agencies'  regulatory process
enables a more  informed public to  provide supporting technical/legal/economic analyses to
strengthen  the  agencies'  rulemaking vehicles.    The   Program  Management Office  (PMO)
coordinates the operations of the eRulemaking Program through its 38 partner Departments  and
Independent agencies (comprising more  than 165 agencies, boards,  commissions, and offices).
This coordination is  realized through the  administrative boards that work with the PMO on day-
to-day  operations, ongoing enhancements,  and long-range planning  for program development.
These  administrative boards (the  Executive  Committee and  the  Advisory Board) have
                                          1034

-------
representative members from each partner agency and  deal with contracts,  budget, web site
improvements, improved  public access, records management,  and a host of other regulatory
concerns that were formally only agency-specific in nature.  The coordination with the partner
agencies allows for a more uniform and consistent rulemaking process across government. This
coordination is further realized by  the fact that more than 90  percent of all federal rules
promulgated annually are managed through the eRulemaking Program.

The National Environmental Exchange Network (EN): The EN is a partnership among states,
tribes, and EPA.  It is revolutionizing the exchange of environmental information by allowing
these partners to share data efficiently and securely over the Internet. This approach is providing
real-time access to higher quality data while saving time and resources, for all of the partners.
Leadership for the EN is provided by the Exchange Network Leadership Council (ENLC), which
is co-chaired by OEI and a state partner.  The ENLC works with representatives from the EPA,
state environmental agencies, and tribal organizations to manage the Exchange Network. FY
2012 will be a critical year for the Exchange Network to complete its current strategic plan to
flow data across the spectrum of EPA's programs.

Automated  Commercial  Environment/International  Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS):
ACE is the  system being built by Customs and Border Protection  (CBP) to  ensure  that its
customs agents have the information they need to decide how to handle goods and merchandise
being shipped into, or out of,  the United States.  ITDS is the organizational framework by which
all government agencies with import/export responsibilities participate in the development of the
ACE system.  ACE will be  a single, electronic point of entry for importers and exporters to
report required information to the appropriate agencies.  It  also will be the way those agencies
provide CBP with information about potential imports/exports.  ACE  eliminates the need,
burden,  and cost of paper reporting.  It also allows importers and exporters to report the same
information to multiple Federal agencies with a single submission.

EPA has the responsibility and legal authority to make sure pesticides, toxic chemicals, vehicles
and engines, ozone-depleting substances, and other commodities entering the  country meet our
environmental, human health, and safety standards. EPA's ongoing collaboration with CBP on
the ACE/ITDS project will greatly improve information exchange between EPA and CBP. As a
result, Customs officers at our nation's  borders will  have the information they need to admit
products that meet our environmental regulations,  and to interdict goods or  products that are
hazardous or illegal. EPA's work on ACE/ITDS builds on the technical leadership developed by
the Central  Data  Exchange and  Exchange  Network  (CDX/EN).  Applying the  CDX/EN
technology  offers all agencies participating in ACE the opportunity to  improve  the  quality,
timeliness, and accessibility of their data at lower cost.  At least five agencies have expressed
interest in the CDX/EN technology as a way to exchange data.  By  FY 2012, EPA expects to
have completed pilot  data exchanges with Customs and Border  Protection  so that full-scale
development can occur.  This will enable EPA to share  approaches and technology with other
Agencies who are interested.  EPA will either provide its  technology and approaches to them for
replication or act  as a fee for service provider.  This will save money and create  efficiencies
government-wide by eliminating redundancies in infrastructure spending that would otherwise be
required across each agency.
                                         1035

-------
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)  Support:  EPA's Automated
Security Self-Evaluation and Reporting Tool (ASSERT)  provides federal managers  with the
information they need, from an enterprise perspective, to make timely and informed decisions
regarding the level  of security implemented on their information resources.  It provides the
reports and information those managers need to protect their critical cyber infrastructure and
privacy information. It helps agencies understand and assess their security risks,  monitor
corrective actions and provide standardized and automated FISMA reports.  Federal  agencies
using EPA's  FISMA Reporting Solution, and ASSERT,  include: EPA, Export-Import  Bank
(EXEVI), Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the SB A.

Geospatial  Information:  EPA works extensively  with DOI, NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the USD A, the DHS  and over
20 other Federal agencies through the activities of the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) and the OMB Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB).  OEI leads several key initiatives
within the FGDC and GeoLoB, and is one of only two agencies (the other being the  National
Geospatial  Intelligence Agency)  that participate  in the Coordinating Committee,  Steering
Committee, and Executive  Steering  Committee of the FGDC,  and the Federal  Geospatial
Advisory Committee. A  key  component of this work is developing  and implementing the
infrastructure  to support  a comprehensive array 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  supporting  emergency  first
responders and  other homeland security situations.   Through programs like the EPA  National
Information Exchange Network, EPA also works closely with its state and tribal partners to
ensure consistent implementation of standards and technologies supporting the efficient and cost
effective sharing of geographically based data and services.

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS): OEI works with the Office of the
Science Advisor (OSA) to support EPA's involvement in the GEOSS initiative. Other partners in
this initiative are: the U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO), and a significant number of
other  federal agencies, including NASA,  NOAA, USGS, HHS, Department of Energy (DoE),
DoD, USDA, Smithsonian,  the National Science  Foundation  (NSF),  USDA, State, and the
Department of Transportation (DOT).  Under the ten-year strategic plan published by the Office
of Science and Technology  Policy  (OSTP)  in  2005, OEI  and  OSA  are  leading EPA's
development  of the  environmental component of the Integrated Earth Observation System
(IEOS), which will be the U.S. federal contribution to the international GEOSS effort.   Earth
observation data, models,  and decision-support systems will play an increasingly important role
in finding solutions  for complex problems, including adaptation to climate change.  OEI also
coordinates with OMB and OSTP to connect the interagency GEOSS work  with our  Open
Government and Data.gov activities.

Chesapeake Bay Program:  Operating under Executive Order No. 13508, EPA is working to
help restore the  Chesapeake Bay.  Federal Partners in this initiative are:   National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S.  Fish and
Wildlife Service; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;  USGS; U.S. Forest  Service; National Park
Service; and the U.S. Navy  (representing Department of Defense).  The  States of New York,
                                         1036

-------
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District  of
Columbia,  are also participating in the  effort. Using the Exchange Network (EPA's existing
network facilitating data sharing  among and with the  states  and tribes), OEI will develop a
similar resource for the agencies working on the Chesapeake Bay, and will couple it with geo-
positioning technologies.

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

The EPA Inspector General is a member of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization comprised of Federal Inspectors General (IG), GAO, and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The CIGIE  coordinates and improves the way IGs
conduct audits, investigations and internal operations. The  CIGIE also promotes joint projects of
government-wide interest, and reports annually to the President on the collective performance of
the IG community. The EPA OIG Office  of Cyber  Investigations and Homeland  Security
coordinate 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  also  promotes  collaboration among  EPA's
partners and stakeholders in the  application of technology,  information, resources,  and law
enforcement  efforts through  its  outreach  activities.  Further, the EPA OIG  initiates and
participates in collaborative audits, evaluations and investigations with OIGs of agencies with an
environmental mission such as the DOI and USD A, and with other federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies as prescribed by the IG Act, as amended.
                                          1037

-------
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Introduction

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.  The discussion that follows summarizes each of the management
challenges that EPA's Office  of Inspector  General (OIG) and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) have identified and presents the Agency's response.

EPA has established a mechanism for identifying and addressing its key management challenges.
As  part of its Federal Management Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) process, EPA senior
managers meet with representatives from EPA's OIG, 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 recognizes that
management challenges, if not addressed adequately, may prevent the Agency from effectively
meeting its mission.  EPA remains committed to addressing all management issues in a timely
manner and will address them to the fullest extent of our authority.

1.  Addressing Emerging Climate Change Issues

Summary of Challenge:   According to GAO,  the federal government's approach to climate
change has been ad hoc and is not well coordinated across government agencies. For example,
the federal government lacks a comprehensive approach for targeting federal research dollars
toward the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies.  EPA, as well as other
agencies, has been slow to implement recommendations.

Agency Response:   In the past two years,  EPA has taken several important actions to address
climate  change. Currently, EPA plays  a key role in developing and implementing President
Obama's ambitious climate change agenda.  For instance, the Agency is participating in strategic
discussions and providing technical advice  and analysis on the full range of domestic climate
policies and  technologies. This  includes   market-based  energy legislation,  whether  it  be
comprehensive or targeted; transportation;  energy efficiency  and renewable energy; and new
technologies, such as carbon capture and storage.

Additionally,  EPA is taking regulatory actions to address  climate change and continuing to
implement its ongoing voluntary partnership programs. EPA,  in conjunction with DOT, issued
new greenhouse  gas emission standards  for  light vehicles. EPA has  also  proposed  new
greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty  vehicles  and is  considering  appropriate regulatory
actions for other  transportation sources, in response to several  petitions  which call for the
Agency to address these sources. In October 2009, EPA issued a regulation establishing, for the
first time, a nationwide  mandatory greenhouse gas  reporting program for large sources of
greenhouse gases and fuel suppliers, which  account for about  85 percent of national emissions.
Reporting under this program began in 2011. In July 2008, EPA proposed regulations under the
                                         1038

-------
 Safe Drinking  Water Act  ensuring  a  protective  regulatory framework for  commercial-scale
 facilities that sequester carbon dioxide  in geologic formations. EPA is responding to the 2007
 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and has issued  under the Clean Air Act a
 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and that emissions from new
 motor vehicles  contribute to that threat.

 EPA is implementing a Renewable Fuel Standard as revised by the Energy Independent and
 Security Act, requiring the United States to incorporate 36 billion gallons of biofuels, including
 requirements for advanced and cellulosic fuels, into its fuel  supply by 2022. EPA has provided
 extensive technical advice and economic modeling on the major climate and energy bills in the
 House and Senate.

 Recognizing that climate change cuts  across many programs and  offices  within the Agency,
 senior  leadership is taking steps to expand  and improve communication and coordination on
 emerging climate change issues. Coordination mechanisms  have been established among EPA
 offices  working on climate change, including  daily  planning  calls, regular meetings at  the
 Deputy Administrator level, and extensive outreach across  offices  and  with  the EPA regions.
 These processes will ensure that the Agency receives information and input, draws effectively on
 its resources, and provides useful information to its stakeholders around the country. EPA  has
 also identified two High Priority Performance Goals to improve the country's ability to measure
 and control GHG emissions. Specifically, EPA will ensure that data collected for the Greenhouse
 Gas Reporting  Rule is made publically available in a timely fashion, and that they implement
 regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the United States
 starting with model year 2012.

 Finally, EPA continues to deliver on all commitments under  its ongoing partnership programs to
 reduce  greenhouse gases,  focused on energy  efficiency,  transportation,  and other  sectors.
 Experience and knowledge gained through these programs is  also informing EPA's input into the
 broader climate policy discussion.

 2.   Reducing Domestic Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

 Summary  of Challenge: In April 2007, the  U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Massachusetts v.
 EPA case  that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  In
 December  2009, the Agency issued an endangerment finding for six GHGs.  According to OIG,
 although EPA  is addressing  these findings through regulations,  voluntary programs,  and
 research and development,  the Agency faces significant challenges  that  are beyond its  control,
 including political  and private  opposition,  unverifmble data,  and reliance on multiagency
 research.   For example, EPA  is developing regulations to  control GHG emissions  without
 statutory language that specifically establishes a GHG program.  Also, EPA is relying on data
from voluntary programs that may be unreliable and unverifmble, and on multiagency research
for which it has limited control over the  content, conduct, and timing of the research.

 Agency Response:  EPA is addressing these findings  through regulations, voluntary programs,
 and research and development.  EPA agrees that it faces significant challenges that are beyond its
 control, including political and private  opposition, and reliance  on  multiagency research.  The
                                          1039

-------
Office of Air and Radiation leads the Agency's development of multiple mobile source programs
to address GHG emissions from light-duty passenger vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, ocean-going
vessels, aircraft and other non-road engines.   This work involves extensive Agency efforts
including coordination with other federal agencies and international organizations.  The Agency
is also addressing the concern about unverifiable data  through the landmark Greenhouse Gas
Reporting program which has been established to collect and verify GHG emissions from over
10,000 large sources.  The Agency has set a goal to have the data collected in 2010 publically
available by June 15, 2011.

3.   Improving Implementation of the Clean Air Act

Summary  of Challenge:     GAO reports that EPA  faces  many  challenges related  to
implementation of the Clean Air Act, including those related to coordination with other federal
agencies, analyses of health impacts from air pollution, and delays in regulating mercury and
other air toxics.  EPA also faces challenges relating to numerous regulatory proposals that have
been overturned or remanded by the courts.

Agency Response:   Over the years, GAO has  conducted various studies that identified key
challenges  EPA faces in  implementing the Clean Air Act (Improving Children's  Health,
Managing Air Toxics, Uncertainty of Health Benefits in  Rules Addressing Particulate Matter,
and   Economic Justification   for  Rule  for   Limiting  Mercury  Emissions)   and  made
recommendations intended to enhance the effectiveness of its clean air program.  The  Agency
has devoted substantial  resources  to addressing GAO's recommendations  and ensuring the
effective implementation of clean air programs, and it is making substantial progress.   Agency
efforts include  working with the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee to ensure
transparency. Additionally, the Agency is using the best possible science in its decision-making
processes.   The Agency  is working to  expand  toxics monitoring in affected communities,
quantifying and understanding the sources of uncertainty in its benefit analyses, and issuing new
rules to address mercury emissions.

4.   Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

Summary of Challenge:  Under the Clean  Water Act (CWA) and  the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SWDA), EPA is responsible for assisting water and wastewater facilities in meeting their water
treatment requirements.   Many  drinking water and wastewater systems across the country are
unable  to  maintain compliance with federal  water standards  due  to  repairs and new
constructions.   OIG believes EPA needs to take the  lead in developing a coherent federal
strategy, within the limits of its statutory authorities and responsibilities,  to assess the investment
requirements and work with states and local governments to organize resources to meet water
and wastewater infrastructure needs.

Agency Response:   Over the past year, based on input from state and  local  stakeholders EPA
has developed a Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Sustainability Policy which
will  help set the course  for our future efforts across the water sector and with other federal
agencies, including the incorporation of Sustainability into the State Revolving Loan programs.
                                          1040

-------
This Policy emphasizes the importance of sustainable infrastructure and systems in ensuring that
communities across the nation are sustainable.

EPA also continues to work with partners across the water sector to promote sustainable water
and wastewater systems based on the ten Attributes of an Effectively Managed Utility.  This
first-of-its-kind national collaboration with six major water sector associations  provides water
sector    a common  management framework, which is helping  the sector move in a unified
manner towards sustainability.   Building  on momentum with existing partners, EPA will be
reaching out to those that represent  smaller systems to ensure that the  framework is adopted
across the spectrum of large and small utilities.

To address the unique challenges faced by small and disadvantaged drinking water systems, EPA
has been working with a group of states to evaluate existing implementation efforts, roadblocks
to building water system  capacity,  and  identifying best  practices  that  can  aid in the
implementation of the SDWA's Capacity Development Program.  Ultimately, this re-energizing
effort should lead  to increased sharing of implementation best practices and stronger Capacity
Development programs, and ultimately help more public water systems be sustainable. Based on
the efforts over the past year, EPA, states and other stakeholders will be engaging in a variety of
activities  to improve water  system technical,  managerial and  financial capacity,  including
increasing collaboration between the Capacity Development and Drinking Water SRF Programs.

Recognizing that water efficiency has significant implications  for water infrastructure, EPA has
continued to expand the WaterSense program, launched in 2006. The WaterSense label makes it
easy for consumers to find products  and services that save water while  ensuring performance,
thereby reducing the burden on  infrastructure and mitigating  water availability challenges.  It
also  helps to build a national consciousness of the value of water and water services,  which is
essential to the national  awareness  and acceptance  that everyone must help pay for our
infrastructure needs. WaterSense milestones in the last year include the release of specifications
for new homes and showerheads.

Sustainable Infrastructure has also been integrated into the Sustainable Communities partnership
with the Department of  Housing  and  Urban Development  (HUD)  and  Department of
Transportation (DOT).  As our nation plans  for future growth, we  must ensure that water
infrastructure and  water quality are  priorities  as we  develop policies to ensure sustainable
communities.  To that end, applicants were encouraged  to consider water infrastructure planning
with other considerations in the  $100 million grant notice that was recently released by HUD.
EPA is  also conducting pilots with three states on incorporating sustainability into Clean Water
Revolving Fund loan program priorities - both on the system and community levels.
In these and other  ways, EPA has taken a leading role with Federal partners and has worked to
increase public awareness and appreciation of the need for sustainable water infrastructure.

The following bullets give a summary of some of the other recent activities under the Sustainable
Infrastructure Initiative:

   •   In May, EPA convened  the  regions and various Headquarters  offices for a national
       meeting to better define and invigorate  efforts to promote asset management.   As a
                                          1041

-------
   follow-up to the meeting, we are working to better integrate asset management into the
   daily work of the Regions, as well as permits and enforcement offices.

•  In addition to the ongoing series of asset management training courses EPA offers across
   the country (40 sessions conducted over the last 8 years), the Agency conducted two beta
   versions of a second asset management training  course to deal with more advanced
   topics.

•  EPA will continue its efforts to promote better management practices at the system level
   to improve system technical, managerial and financial capacity. Central to this effort is
   the Check Up Program for Small  Systems (CUPSS) asset management software for
   drinking and  wastewater systems.  CUPSS is a free, easy-to-use,  asset management tool
   for small drinking water and wastewater utilities. In partnership with state agencies and
   technical assistance providers, the Agency continues to promote and assist small systems
   to learning about  and  doing asset management by  using  CUPSS.   A comprehensive
   marketing, user support, and training strategy will  be fully implemented, with emphasis
   on leveraging our state and training  assistance provider partners as the "CUPSS  Trainer
   Network."  EPA will also be launching a self-paced, on-line training for users to learn
   how to use CUPSS.

•  In the fall of 2009, EPA  completed two workshops  with EPA Regions 6 and  8  to
   introduce utilities to a program to improve their energy efficiency  and management based
   on the Energy Management Guidebook for Wastewater and Drinking Water Utilities.
   Since the Guidebook was published in 2008, EPA has sponsored a total  of 21 workshops
   around the country. EPA Regional offices are now  working with over 100 utilities across
   the country to help them develop more detailed  energy management programs based on
   the Guidebook.

•  EPA is developing an energy audit tool and audit protocol for small water and wastewater
   systems to help them evaluate their energy usage and identify opportunities to reduce
   energy use. Following beta and pilot testing the tool with small utilities, EPA will launch
   a marketing and training effort.

•  Growth of the WaterSense partnership to  more  than  600 promotional partners, 165
   manufacturers, 165 retailer/distributors (including  Lowe's  and Home Depot), and 1000
   irrigation partners as of December, 2010. The program has also signed on more  than 45
   builders and licensed certification providers who inspect homes  prior to labeling.  The
   first WaterSense labeled homes were completed in the fall of 2010.  In 2009 (the most
   recent year for which we have data), WaterSense  labeled  products saved more than 36
   billion gallons of water and more than $267 million on consumers' water and sewer bills.

•  EPA is  actively  working with  a long  list  of partners  to implement our  Green
   Infrastructure Action Plan.  The focus of this work is on green infrastructure approaches
   to managing  wet  weather.  Among other activities, the  Action Plan aims to better
   document costs, benefits and effectiveness  of practices,  incorporate  green infrastructure
                                      1042

-------
       into Long Term Control Plans for combined sewer overflows, and foster implementation
       in communities across the country.

   •   EPA continues an active  schedule of outreach activities through various communications
       channels, including notably a series of webcasts on topics which range  across the SI
       initiative.

5.   Addressing Clean Water Issues

Summary of Challenge: EPA partners with federal, state, and local agencies and others to
reduce pollution in the  nation's waters, but many pollution sources are difficult to monitor and
regulate.  GAO believes the Agency should address past GAO recommendations for regulating
storm water  runoff and discharges from  animal feeding operations and for improving the
Chesapeake Bay Program and Great Lakes Initiative.   In addition, among the most daunting
water pollution control problems, GAO notes that the nation's water utilities face billions of
dollars in upgrades to aging and deteriorating infrastructures that, left unaddressed, can affect
the quality of our water

Agency Response:  To adequately address water quality issues pertaining to stormwater, EPA
has committed to take final  action  on a rulemaking  to address, at minimum,  stormwater
discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites by November, 2012. In  addition, further
action specific to the Chesapeake Bay watershed that may entail more stringent measures and/or
accelerated implementation of proposed measures included  in the national rule will  also  be
incorporated  into  the final rulemaking.  Other stormwater discharges, such as from  existing
development in urbanized areas, linear facilities  (roads and  other transportation venues), and
certain types of industrial stormwater discharges may also be included within the scope of this
new  rule.   Expansion of the universe of regulated  Municipal Separate Storm Sewer  Systems
(MS4s) is also likely under this rulemaking. This is a very  complex, detailed, and difficult effort
that will require  substantial human and  financial  resources, especially  given the extremely
compressed schedule to which EPA has committed.

EPA is in a pre-proposal stage for a rule that, under section 308 of the Clean Water Act, would
collect facility information from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The rule
would  establish a national inventory and assist with  the implementation of the CAFO  NPDES
regulations.  In line with EPA's commitment to transparency, the Agency will be seeking public
comment throughout the rulemaking  process.  Proposal of the  rule and final  action will take
place by May 2012.

Revised CAFO NPDES regulations require EPA  and authorized States to issue permits for an
expanded universe (from the 1974 regulations) of CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge
to Waters of the U.S.  In 2002, about 4,000 CAFOs were permitted  out of a total of 12,800
CAFOs.  Today, EPA estimates that approximately 14,400  out of 19,200 total CAFOs may need
permits, yet only 8,000 of these CAFOs have NPDES permits to date.  In addition, inspections
will require substantial effort to determine whether CAFOs will discharge and are in compliance
with their new nutrient management plans (NMPs).
                                          1043

-------
EPA estimates that the NPDES CAFO rule revisions will result in an annual pollutant reduction
of 56 million pounds of phosphorus, 110 million pounds of nitrogen, and two billion pounds of
sediment.  To realize these pollutant reductions, States must adopt the provisions of the new
regulations and then issue permits consistent with those rules. Additional Agency resources are
needed to  assist States in developing revised legislation, regulations, and/or permits to reflect the
new regulations and to oversee State review of NMPs.  States need additional resources to revise
their programs, to review NMPs for every  permitted CAFO, and to increase enforcement and
compliance efforts to  ensure that all CAFOs that discharge seek permit coverage and carry out
proper operation and maintenance.

Under the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Agency is  establishing a  Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) which will establish a rigorous accountability framework to  ensure that all practices
(including those for storm water systems  and animal feeding operations) needed to reduce
pollution and meet  the Bay water quality standards, are in place  by 2025.  Additionally, the
Agency is  initiating  national  rulemaking to  control storm water  discharges  from  new
development and redevelopment sites; reviewing each state's CAFO program to ensure that they
meet the programmatic requirements of the 2008 rule; reviewing each state's technical standards
for nutrient management  to ensure they meet the  requirements of the CFO regulation; and
developing new CAFO regulations to more effectively address pollutant reductions necessary for
the TMDL.

EPA disagrees with  GAO's assumption that unacceptable inconsistency  exists and that finalizing
the draft permitting strategy (referred to in GAO report 08-312T) would enhance consistency.
The Agency believes that there is a high level of consistency in mercury criteria among the Great
Lakes states, and that the state approaches for incorporating Great  Lakes Initiatives (GLI)
mercury requirements  in permits are very similar. Rather than developing a permitting strategy,
it would be more productive to ensure that the  states follow the strategies they have developed,
which are based on EPA-approved  state requirements, and borrow from the approaches other
states have developed, as appropriate.  The Agency will reconvene the  GLI workgroup to focus
on GLI implementation  issues, including consistency across states.  The Agency believes that
this, along with providing additional support for state implementation efforts will  be more
effective than a permitting strategy in achieving even greater consistency in mercury reduction
strategies and goals. Agency efforts will include:

    •  Provide regional  oversight regarding mercury requirements in  state-issued permits and
      work with states to develop  standard language for development and implementation of
      mercury Pollutant Minimization Program (PMPs) in NPDES permits, as appropriate
    •  Develop tools to assess compliance with mercury PMPs;  and
    •  Assess the most effective approaches for reducing loadings by point source discharge.

6.    Safe  Reuse of Contaminated Sites

Summary of Challenge: EPA places increasing emphasis on the reuse of contaminated or once-
contaminated properties and has a performance measure to define a population of contaminated
sites that are ready for reuse. EPA faces "significant  and increasing" challenges in this area,
however,  due  to the  common practice of not removing  all  sources of contamination from
                                          1044

-------
hazardous sites;  a regulatory structure that places  key responsibilities for  monitoring and
enforcing the long-term safety of contaminated sites on non-EPA parties that may lack necessary
resources, information, and skill;  changes in site risks as site conditions change over time; and
existing weaknesses in EPA 's oversight of the long-term safety of sites.  EPA will continually
need to assess challenges it faces as well as challenges among the diverse group of non-EPA
parties it must work with to ensure sites are safely reused.  To address the challenges,  these
assessments should include  consideration of new  or expanded authorities  and regulations,
organization structures, and dedicated funding and resources.

Agency Response: According to OIG, many contaminated sites, such as Superfund sites, must
be monitored in the long term (i.e. 30 years or more) because known contamination is often not
removed or remediated and controls that prevent prohibited activities at sites must be maintained
and  enforced. New controls or monitoring may be required if previously undetected  or new
contaminants emerge, which can happen directly as a result of a change in the site brought  about
by reuse. The lack of effective  long-term monitoring and enforcement of reuse controls  at
contaminated sites can pose significant risks to human health and the environment.

For  sites remediated under CERCLA, where waste is left in place above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted access, EPA performs five year reviews (FYRs) to ensure that
sites remain protective.  One of the primary functions of the FYR is to determine whether new
information about contaminants e.g.,  new toxicity data, or exposure pathways (e.g., a change  in
land use) at the site is available, that would compromise the protectiveness of the site. If such a
change is found to compromise protectiveness, additional action will be taken to ensure  that the
public is protected. With the vapor intrusion pathway, many Regions did not wait for the  FYR to
consider the importance of this potential exposure pathway and prioritized sites  for investigation
before the next FYR.   Superfund can take remedial action even at sites that have  been  deleted
from the National Priorities List (NPL).

This process addresses the vast majority of "emerging "contaminant situations that we observe at
NPL sites. Most so called emerging contaminant issues result from changes in toxicity values  or
changes in detection levels, both  of which will be addressed in the FYR.  In the rare situation
where a site  is  not subject to FYR, EPA has information resources such  as CERCLIS, a
searchable database  for  records  of  decision that can be  used to identify sites  where new
contaminant information  may lead to questions of long-term protectiveness.  In these situations,
EPA can relook at sites and determine whether additional action is warranted.

EPA is actively involved in working with stakeholders to promote site reuse, such as with our
Return to Use Initiative.  The Agency makes specific inquiry of the site managers and  other
stakeholders about new issues that might affect site risks  if the site goes into reuse.  Vapor
intrusion is routinely examined as a potential concern at such sites. In addition, for sites further
along  in the cleanup  process, we always review the  most recent Five Year Reviews  to help
determine whether there are changed conditions or anything else that  might affect site safety
during reuse.  Site safety never takes a back seat to promotion of site reuse.

EPA places a high priority on the implementation of appropriate  institutional controls (ICs)  in
working  with  site stakeholders considering site reuse. For example, one of the objectives of our
                                           1045

-------
Return to Use Initiative is to evaluate and, if necessary, modify and implement requirements for
ICs.  Also, our guidance for issuing Ready for Reuse Determinations requires that ICs be in
place.  Finally, our Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use GPRA performance measure counts
only sites that have required ICs fully implemented.

EPA  has also  found  that  supporting  and encouraging  reuse  can  facilitate  the  successful
implementation and enforcement of appropriate ICs.  Specifically, EPA signs a State Superfund
Contract  (SSC)  with the  State,  which  outlines  roles  and responsibilities,  including
implementation  and  enforcement  of  ICs,  roles  and  responsibilities for  operations  and
maintenance  of engineering controls.   Under CERCLA, States are responsible  for  O&M
activities, including oversight of work done by potentially responsible parties.  Nevertheless,
EPA is responsible for performing FYRs at sites where waste is  left in place above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted access, regardless of who is performing Operations and
Maintenance  (O&M).  This periodic review is an excellent mechanism for providing long-term
stewardship of sites.  In the event of natural disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes), EPA routinely
makes special reviews of sites to ensure that protectiveness has not been compromised.

Long-term stewardship  considerations  are  important  factors   in  developing  enforcement
agreements with responsible parties or with parties redeveloping sites.  Long-term response costs
are important considerations in determining the present worth value of remedial alternatives. We
are working to ensure that the implementation costs associated with ICs is considered as part of
the remedy selection process.

In addition, EPA is developing tools to make 1C information more readily available to the public,
including developers.   Again, under CERCLA much of this responsibility resides with the States
by law, but EPA works with the States so that they understand the long-term stewardship needs
of the remedies chosen for sites.

The OIG overstates the level  of  threat associated  with  the  site reuse issues  and  does not
demonstrate that the process is not protective.  In general, site reuse, limited recreation use along
a bike path, was not inconsistent with the implemented site remediation.  Recreational use is not
unrestricted use and does not assume unlimited access. The "new" contamination that the OIG
cites is noted in the previous FYR,  so is not truly a new contaminant, nor was it found at a level
that posed a threat to human health and the environment. In addition, institutional controls for the
site worked to require a property owner who acquired a portion of the site to consult with EPA
and obtain permission from the State before performing any construction on the site.

EPA cannot constantly monitor all reuse plans  at all sites.  EPA routinely reviews reuse plans
brought to them by owners,  developers, and other parties to ensure they are consistent with the
remedy.  The  onus is on the developer to share plans with EPA. EPA does not control  land use
and EPA cannot dictate or monitor reuse plans. However, EPA can and does work with owners
to ensure appropriate reuse when those plans are brought to the Agency's attention.

Generally, deleted sites with waste left in place are monitored through Five Year Reviews, which
evaluate  reuse activities on and near the site, as well as changed site conditions, to determine if
                                          1046

-------
the remedy remains protective.  If no waste is left in place there should be no need to monitor
site reuse.

A Ready for Reuse (RfR) Determination should not be issued for every site. The Agency has
found that they appear to be most useful at sites where Superfund stigma is a significant barrier
to site reuse.  Stigma can affect the willingness of developers to work with a site, lenders to lend
funds for site redevelopment, or prospective site users to feel comfortable visiting the site.  The
RfR Determination does describe appropriate use  and  limitations  on site use;  however, this
information is also available and taken from other documents in the site repository.

OIG asserts that EPA's management of the long-term oversight and monitoring requirements for
the safe reuse of contaminated sites has lagged behind the Agency's marketing of site reuse
opportunities and its showcasing of successes. This gap promises to increase substantially as
EPA continues to heavily promote the reuse of contaminated sites without investing in the tools
needed to ensure the safe, long-term use of these sites. Promoting reuse sends a strong message
to communities that EPA is a necessary participant in the dialogue. Seeing EPA as a collaborator
rather than an impediment means that communities involve EPA in the reuse process, which
allows EPA to communicate key messages about protectiveness. Once communities are ready to
engage in a dialogue about using a site, EPA can offer a number of tools to ensure the reuse is
appropriate  and will  enhance long-term  protectiveness. Below are a few of the tools EPA
actively promotes to ensure appropriate and safe reuse of sites:

    •  Ready for  Reuse Determinations  are environmental  status reports that reiterate  the
      limitations  and opportunities associated with the reuse of sites. As noted in the  OIG
      report,  these are not mandatory for each site, but may be useful for sharing information
      about the site to a broader audience. EPA Headquarters consistently uses opportunities to
      educate remedial project managers  about where and how it can be used, most recently at
      the 2010 National Association of Remedial Project Manager's conference.
    •  Comfort and status letters are issued by Regions to convey the status of the  site
      remediation, describe site limitations and protectiveness issues and clarify liability issues.
    •  Prospective purchaser inquiry  calls provide consistent and reliable information about
      limitations  and  opportunities  at sites. Frequently,  these  calls result  in prospective
      purchasers  determining that sites  are  not  appropriate.  However,  this outcome is  not
      deemed a failure since it provided information that future users would need to understand
      before using a site.
    •  EPA-funded reuse planning offers  communities and key stakeholders the  opportunity to
      engage in  an  educated and realistic dialogue about the reuse of sites.  EPA project
      managers serve as information resources during these exercises, where information about
      institutional controls and long-term stewardship  are integrated into the reuse planning
      process.
    •  Site reuse fact sheets provide key information to parties interested in the  reuse of sites.
      These single-page fact sheets highlight critical remedial components in place, long term
      maintenance activities, and institutional controls.
    •  CERCLIS provides detailed information about the institutional  controls in place at sites,
      in addition to their eligibility to meet performance measures that affirm  all remedial
      components and institutional controls are in place.
                                           1047

-------
The Site Wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) and Cross Program Revitalization Measure
(CPRM) Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) performance measures have explicit criteria that are
used to evaluate whether a site is protective. These measures can communicate when EPA feels
that all remedial  components and  institutional controls are in place such that the site can
accommodate its reasonably anticipated future land use.

We believe that through these measures and tools we do an effective job of communicating site
risks and remedies, and information site users need to know to be able to use the sites without
compromising protectiveness. We will continue to explore new tools  and approaches to sharing
this information to ensure that our sites remain safe in their future uses.

7.   Speeding the Pace of Cleanup at Superfund and other Hazardous Waste Sites

Summary of Challenge: In 1980 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act,  better known as Superfund, which gave the federal government
the authority to ensure the  cleanup of hazardous waste sites both  on private and public  land.
GAO believes that declining appropriations (when adjusted for inflation) have slowed the pace
of cleanups.  Further,  GAO notes that EPA has not implemented a 1980 mandate  requiring
businesses to demonstrate that they can pay for potential environmental cleanups,  that is, to
provide financial assurance.  GAO  has recommended that EPA  (1) ensure  that financial
assurances are in place for sites  that manufacture or use toxic  chemicals;  (2) improve the
institutional controls at contaminated sites; (3) ensure that owners of underground storage tanks
maintain access to  adequate financial resources  and state insurance funds provide reliable
coverage for cleanups; and (4) establish a formal structure to centrally track and monitor the
status of cleanup efforts.

Agency Response:  EPA recognizes the need for program improvements and has efforts under
way to address GAO's concerns regarding the pace of cleanup at Superfund and other hazardous
waste sites.   While  it is recognized that continued  work is necessary in two of  these areas to
improve program  implementation, such work is already underway.  Specifically, in July 2009,
EPA published a notice in the Federal Register identifying Hard Rock Mining as the first class of
facilities for  which financial responsibility requirements will be developed.   In January 2010,
EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that identified  three
additional classes of facilities for which it plans to develop financial assurance requirements.
This substantial regulatory effort is scheduled to continue through 2012.

EPA released a strategy to ensure institutional control (1C) implementation at Superfund  sites in
September 2004, developed an 1C tracking system to ensure that sites have appropriate ICs in
place, and provided public access to 1C information at Superfund sites.  EPA is also developing
guidance on implementation and assurance plans for ICs. These efforts recognize that there is a
significant role for local and state governments in the planning, implementing, monitoring and
enforcing  of ICs relied upon in  cleanup of many contaminated sites.  In addition, OSRTI is
developing three guidance documents.  One clarifies the process  of planning, implementing,
monitoring and enforcing ICs across several EPA programs including Superfund, RCRA, UST,
and Brownfields cleanups. A second document provides guidance for evaluating the contribution
                                          1048

-------
to remedy protectiveness of institutional controls during the five-year review process; and a third
document provides guidance for developing 1C Implementation and Assurance Plans.

EPA has made progress on the issues of financial responsibility with respect to the underground
storage tanks  program on a number of fronts.  The Agency has incorporated verification of
financial responsibility into its EPA inspection requirement and has undertaken an examination
of private insurance.   The Agency has also  undertaken a significant  analytical study of the
cleanup backlog,  sifting through the data from 14 states and  seeks to identify the attributes of
groups of open, unaddressed releases.  Efforts to improve oversight of state  funds continue to
evolve and publication of the Agency's guidance is expected by the end of this year.

With respect  to the fourth recommendation, EPA  already tracks  Superfund cleanup efforts
through  its CERCLIS  database,  which  contains  information (including  site  contaminant
information) on all Superfund sites.

8.   EPA's Framework  for  Assessing and Managing  Chemical Risks / Transforming
     EPA's   Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals

Summary of  Challenge:   OIG and GAO believe  that EPA 's effectiveness in assessing and
managing chemical risks is hampered in part by limitations on  the Agency's authority to regulate
chemicals under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In January 2009,  GAO included EPA 's
process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals on its high-risk list. GAO notes that EPA 's
ability to protect public health and the environment depends on credible and timely assessment
of the risks posed by toxic chemicals.  EPA 's Integrated Risk  Information System (IRIS), which
contains assessments of more than 500 toxic chemicals, is at a serious risk of becoming obsolete
because  EPA has  been unable  to keep its existing assessments current or to  complete
assessments of important  chemicals of concerns.   OIG reports  that EPA 's New Chemicals
Program is limited in assessment, oversight, and transparency and that performance measures
for managing risks from new  chemicals neither  accurately reflect program performance nor
assure compliance.

Agency  Response:   GAO identified  "Transforming EPA's  Processes for Assessing and
Controlling Chemicals" as  a high-risk area in its January 2009 High-Risk Series.  Regarding
IRIS, GAO states that the Agency needs to take actions to increase transparency and timeliness.
EPA acknowledged  "Streamlining Chemical  Assessments Under IRIS"  as an  Agency-level
weakness under the Federal Financial Managers' Integrity Act in October 2009.  In May 2010,
OIG identified  "EPA's Framework  for  Assessing and  Managing Chemical  Risks" as a
management challenge.

Improving IRIS Process

In May 2009, the Agency released a new Integrated Risk Information System  (IRIS) process for
completing health assessments.   The goal   of the  new  process  is to  strengthen  program
management,  increase  transparency,  and  expedite the  timeliness  of  health assessments.
Additionally, the  Agency implemented steps to reduce the IRIS backlog by focusing resources
on 47 assessments that were farther along in the assessment process.  Of these 47 assessments,
                                          1049

-------
10 were completed, 19 are undergoing external peer review or final Agency and interagency
review, three are in interagency science consultation, and 15 are in draft development or Agency
review.     In  FY  2010,  EPA   released  7  major  assessments  (formaldehyde,  dioxin,
trichloroethylene, PAH mixtures, dichloromethane, methanol, chromium VI) for external peer
review and public comment.  These assessments are being reviewed by the NAS, EPA's SAB or
other independent external peer review panels. The Agency is committed to continuing to move
these assessments through  the  IRIS process to completion.   Work has also begun on 20
additional backlogged assessments.  As major assessments requiring a large commitment of FTE
are completed, EPA anticipates being able to address a  greater  number  of assessments.  In
addition,  the program  has  expanded its focus to include more  cumulative  approaches for
assessing risks to chemicals in its assessments. This significant investment of effort is focused
on assessments of health effects for chemicals found in  environmental mixtures and includes
PAHs, dioxins, phthalates and PCBs.  These cumulative approaches will increase the number of
chemicals that are addressed by the IRIS Program, which are based upon the expressed needs of
the Agency.

The  Agency established the IRIS Update Project in 2010 in response to a backlog of outdated
assessments.  Toxicity values older than ten years old are screened for the availability of new
data or new assessment methods  that could change toxicity values or  the cancer descriptor.
Toxicity values will be updated in batches of 8-12 assessments, reviewed by a Federal Standing
Science Committee, and subject to independent external peer review. The 2009/2010 agenda for
the IRIS Update Project was announced in a Federal Register Notice on October 21, 2009 (74 FR
54040).

In FY 2010, to  ensure that resources were focused on the greatest IRIS Program needs, the
Agency expanded the role of its program  and regional offices in  nominating  and prioritizing
chemicals for IRIS assessment.  The IRIS Program met extensively with internal program and
regional offices to better understand their assessment needs and gather input on priorities for the
current IRIS agenda. This information is being used to help determine which assessments will
be completed first.

Additionally, the Agency is partnering with the  California Environmental Protection Agency's
(CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health  Hazard Assessment  and the Agency for  Toxic
Substances and Disease  Registry to pool resources and share information. This partnership is
expected to eventually increase the IRIS Program's efficiency and output of assessments.

The  Agency now has  an IRIS Logistics  Team that coordinates  IRIS-related administrative
support.  The Logistics Team is a matrix-managed team that includes administrative personnel
who work on IRIS-related activities, which were previously performed by individual  chemical
managers.  Having administrative coordination increases efficiency and provides more time for
the chemical managers to focus on scientific work.

The  Agency began a pilot project in FY 2010 to advance the next generation (NextGen) of risk
assessment.  NextGen  explores the use of molecular systems biology in developing health
assessments.  This  collaborative effort (with the  National Institute of Environmental  Health
                                          1050

-------
Sciences,  the  National Human Genome Research  Institute,  and  CalEPA) is expected  to
demonstrate how high throughput data can be used to rapidly develop health assessments.

Additionally, EPA recently developed  a web-based Health Effects Research Online (HERO)
database which provides  access  to  the  scientific  literature used  in EPA's  health  and
environmental risk assessments.  The  scientific  assessments serve as the  foundation for key
Agency decisions to protect human health and the environment.  HERO allows EPA scientists to
access, review, and evaluate thousands  of published research studies.  The public can also use
HERO to see the scientific studies EPA officials use in making key regulatory decisions.

Management of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

Regarding the  management of chemicals, OIG asserts that 14 years after the passage of the Food
Quality Protection Act  and amendments to the  SDWA, EPA has yet to regulate the endocrine-
disrupting  effects  of any chemicals.   The Agency  established  a multi-stakeholder federal
advisory committee, the  Endocrine Disrupter Screening and  Testing  Advisory Committee
(EDSTAC) under the Federal Advisory  Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 9(c).
This committee was  asked to provide advice to the Agency on how to design a screening and
testing program for endocrine disrupting chemicals.  In 1998, the EDSTAC published their final
report, which included five fundamental  recommendations:

       1)  Expand the  evaluation of additional modes of action beyond  estrogen disruption to
       include test systems  that detect androgen and thyroid  disruption directly and via  the
       hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) and hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroidal (HPT) axes.

       2)  Expand the target population beyond humans to include animal wildlife

       3)  Expand screening beyond pesticides (approximately 2000 chemicals) to  include all
       chemicals to  which  humans  and the  environment are exposed  (estimated  at 87,000
       chemicals).

       4)  Incorporate a two-tiered approach: Tier 1 would identify the potential of chemicals to
       interact with the estrogen, androgen and  thyroid hormone systems.  Tier 2 would identify
       the potential hazard and establish dose-response relationships.

       5)  Develop a priority setting  data base that would permit the selection of chemicals for
       screening on the basis of both exposure and potential hazard.

EPA  has  had three  major tasks  to  complete  before it  could  issue test orders to pesticide
registrants  and chemical  manufacturers  to commence testing.   Validation  to establish  the
relevance and  reliability of the assays was the largest of these tasks.  EPA has followed a five-
stage  assay validation process that included: 1)  test development, 2) pre-validation testing, 3)
inter-laboratory validation studies, 4) peer review and  5) regulatory acceptance, as described at
the EDSP  website:    (http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/pubs/assayvalidation/status.htm).
Each  of the first three of these stages typically took a year or more to complete and had to be
                                          1051

-------
completed sequentially as the knowledge developed in one stage was essential to the conduct of
the next stage. Peer review of these assays was completed in mid-2008.

A second task was the prioritization of chemicals to be screened. EPA planned on using the high
throughput in vitro  assays used by the pharmaceutical industry as a means to rapidly identify
those chemicals that  may interact with the endocrine system.  In a demonstration with 65
chemicals conducted in 1998-99, the high throughput screens failed to correctly identify most of
the chemicals known to interact with  hormone receptors; thus,  EPA was forced to adopt  a
different approach for selecting chemicals.   A pilot demonstration of the utility of existing
information led EPA to the conclusion that this was also not a cost-effective way to prioritize and
select chemicals for screening.  In 2005,  EPA finally  proposed  and took comment  on using
exposure information only to identify chemicals, primarily pesticides, in the first round of Tier 1
screening.  This approach led to the proposal of the first list of chemicals for screening in 2007.

The  third task  was to develop the policies  and procedures which would apply to test order
recipients.  These include the procedures for responding to test orders, minimizing duplicative
testing, providing for data compensation, and protecting sensitive information. In addition, EPA
developed  cost estimates  for  conducting  the Tier  1 battery  which formed the basis  of an
Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted to OMB in 2008.  The ICR was  approved in the
fall of 2009, and the first test orders were issued in October 2009.

Despite the fact that the EDSP has only begun to screen  chemicals, EPA has  been obtaining
useful information regarding endocrine-related health effects, as documented by annual  reports
to Congress (EPA has regulated 79 pesticides on the basis of endocrine effects identified through
testing required by the pesticide registration program).   Additionally, the Agency  plans on
implementing the EDSP for pesticides  on  a routine basis by first issuing orders  for pesticides
entering Registration Review. The Registration Review program requires all pesticides  currently
registered to be reevaluated to ensure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards.

While  the  complexity of the  scientific and  regulatory process  for implementing the  EDSP
warrant the designation of the EDSP as a "management challenge," the progress made this year
in issuing test orders and fully implementing the EDSP  demonstrates that the EDSP should not
be regarded as a material weakness.

GAO has stated that EPA's framework for assessing and managing chemical risks has not yet
achieved the  goal of protecting human  health and the environment and EPA's effectiveness in
assessing  and managing chemical risks is hampered in part  by limitations on the Agency's
authority to regulate chemicals under TSCA.  In a similar vein, OIG believes EPA  needs to
transform its processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals.

EPA has announced its principles to strengthen US chemical management laws, and initiated a
comprehensive  effort to enhance the  Agency's current chemicals management program  within
the limits of existing authorities,  and will sustain this  effort in  the FY 2012 President's Budget.
This effort includes:
                                          1052

-------
   •   Using regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in critical exposure and health and
       safety data for chemicals already in commerce and increasing transparency and public
       access to information on TSCA chemicals;

   •   Using data from  all  available  sources  to prioritize chemicals  for  assessment  and
       conducting detailed chemical risk assessments to inform and support development and
       implementation of risk management actions;

   •   Using all available authorities  under TSCA  to take immediate  and lasting action to
       eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks and develop safer alternatives; and

   •   Preventing introduction of unsafe new chemicals into commerce.

Obtaining, Managing and Making Public Chemical Information:

In FY 2012, EPA will continue expanding use of regulatory mechanisms to fill remaining gaps in
critical exposure  and health and  safety data for chemicals already  in commerce,  improve
management of TSCA information  resources  and maximize their availability and usefulness to
the public, including:

   •   Consider issuing and implementing TSCA Section 4 Test Rules to obtain data needed to
       evaluate the safety of existing chemicals, including:

          o  More than 100 HPV chemicals not sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program;

          o  125 or more chemicals newly  identified as HPV chemicals in TCSA Inventory
             Update Reports submitted to EPA in 2011; and,

          o  Several other  chemicals  including bisphenol A  (BPA)  and certain nanoscale
             materials;

   •   Processing submission of 2011 IUR data reports for chemicals produced in volumes of
       greater than 25 thousand pounds per year.

          o  In August 2010, EPA proposed modifications to the IUR rule under Section 8 of
             TSCA, presenting a range of options for public comment to make the reporting of
             chemical use information more transparent, more current, more useful, and more
             useable by the public.

   •   Increasing transparency by reviewing all new  TSCA chemical health and safety studies
       claimed in FY 2012 as CBI and reviewing 4,400 CBI cases submitted prior to 2010,
       challenging claims and declassifying studies where appropriate;

   •   Digitizing over 20,000 TSCA documents received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 8, and
       making those data, where appropriate, available to the public; and,
                                         1053

-------
   •   Expanding electronic reporting to include all TSCA health and safety submissions and
       fully deploying 21st century information technology to more effectively and efficiently
       store and disseminate TSCA information.

Screening and Assessing Chemical Risks:

In FY 2012, EPA will assess the risks of priority chemicals to determine what risk management
is needed and to inform and  support development and implementation of risk management
actions, as appropriate, by:

   •   Initiating detailed chemical risk assessments of priority chemicals that will inform the
       need for and  support development  of risk management actions,  with several of the
       assessments being completed in FY 2012;

   •   Developing hazard characterizations for 500 additional  HPV chemicals using the data
       obtained through  TSCA test  rules,  the TSCA IUR and previous voluntary industry
       submissions, bringing the cumulative total by the end of FY 2012 to 2,165 of the 2,900
       HPV chemicals identified prior to the 2011 TSCA IUR;

   •   Increasing use of intelligent testing approaches to improve our ability  to understand
       chemical risks;

   •   Developing methodologies and tools to better assess risks from high priority chemicals
       such as  PBT chemicals in consumer products  to support risk management actions on
       these chemicals;

   •   Analyzing the data EPA  has  received through its Nanoscale Materials 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; and

   •   Enhancing the RSEI tool to help identify  geographic areas with particularly high  risk
       scores associated with  toxics releases and the  facilities  and chemicals responsible for
       those conditions.

Reducing Chemical Risks:

In FY 2012, the Agency will  continue expanding its portfolio of risk management actions,
including:

   •   Advancing consideration and implementation of risk management actions initiated in FY
       2010 and continued in FY 2011, including:
                                          1054

-------
          o   Consideration of Section 6 use restrictions addressing long chain perfluorinated
              chemicals (PFCs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD),  lead wheel weights, and
              mercury used in switches and certain measuring devices;

          o   Consideration of Section 5  Significant New Use Rules  (SNURs) addressing;
              polybrominated  diphenyl   ethers  (PBDEs),   nonylphenol   and  nonylphenol
              ethoxylates, elemental mercury in products, benzidine  dyes, certain short chain
              chlorinated paraffins, certain phthalates and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD);
              and,

          o   Consideration of Section 5(b)(4)  chemicals of concern listings addressing eight
              phthalates, environmental effects  of bisphenol A (BPA) to aquatic species, and
              PBDEs;

    •   Consider initiating  as  appropriate new risk management actions in FY 2012, including
       potential Section 6 use restrictions/prohibitions, potential Section 5 Significant New Use
       Rules and potential Section 5(b)(4) chemicals of concern listings, informed and supported
       by the ten detailed  chemical risk assessments to be initiated and completed in FY 2012
       (see Assessment section below);

    •   Proposing,  evaluating  public  comments   and   developing   two  final  regulations
       implementing  ten  actions  mandated under  the recently enacted  TSCA  Title  VI
       (Formaldehyde Standards  for  Composite Wood  Act) establishing  national emission
       standards for formaldehyde in new composite wood products - the statute requires EPA
       to finalize and promulgate these regulations by January 1, 2013;

    •   Initiating stewardship  activities including commitments from  industry to adopt viable
       safer  alternatives, safer best practices, voluntary withdrawal  of dangerous chemicals
       and/or products from the market, and stewardship programs to reduce emissions; and

    •   Promoting development of proven safer chemicals, chemical management practices and
       technologies by  assessing risks and efficacy of alternatives  associated with existing
       chemicals which present significant risks.

    •   Improving  rulemaking and increasing  electronic  reporting under  TSCA  to bolster
       compliance at high-risk chemical manufacturing facilities under the Regaining Ground:
       Increasing Compliance in Critical Areas initiative.

EPA has and will continue to work closely with other federal  agencies to identify and address
chemical risks.

9.   Need for a National Environmental Policy

Summary of Challenge:  OIG believes that a national environmental policy is needed to help
EPA and other federal agencies ensure a comprehensive approach to environmental protection.
While EPA 's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan includes cross-media  initiatives, it does not describe
                                          1055

-------
national goals  that go  beyond EPA 's current mission and goal structure.  OIG notes that
Congress needs to provide EPA and other federal agencies the capacity to identify and manage
environmental problems of national significance.  Further, Congress and the Administration
should examine ways to leverage resources.  The Administration should propose to Congress the
creation of expert panels  to formulate a  national  environmental policy  and subsequent
quadrennial reviews of federal responsibilities.

Agency Response:  OIG's report asserts that there is no overarching environmental policy or
framework governing environmental issues that cut across the  federal  government. In fact, a
national environmental policy does exist in the form of authorizing statutory goals and mandates
embodied in the National Environmental  Policy Act (NEPA) and in the various  media-specific
authorities under which EPA and other agencies operate. For example, NEPA provides as its
"purpose:"

To declare a national  policy which will encourage  productive and enjoyable harmony between
man and his  environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate  damage to the
environment  and biosphere  and  stimulate  the health and  welfare of  man;  to enrich  the
understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to
establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

EPA is organized consistent with its Congressional  statutes,  and this is entirely appropriate.
Reorganizing the agency in some other manner to  create more integration  across media would
simply create new stovepipes of a different nature. Under any organizational structure, EPA  and
the  federal agencies must  use matrix management. For example, if organized by function as
suggested in the draft report (e.g., separate offices  for standard-setting, monitoring, permitting,
enforcement), there would have to be subunits within each of the major programs to deal with
specific media (a water subunit within the Enforcement Office).  Those subunits would then have
to coordinate across the Agency (all water subunits within the various offices would have to
coordinate  standard setting, monitoring,  permitting,  etc.).  It is entirely  possible that, if the
Agency had been structured along functional lines, we would now be bemoaning the fragmented
nature of water regulations.

Efforts are also  ongoing to assure intra-agency coordination across media. EPA uses high-level,
cross-agency  councils and committees to  address coordination on topics such  as  science,
environmental  justice,  Indian   policy,  agriculture,  international activities,   performance
management, and information management. EPA has  also established operating procedures to
guarantee cross-program engagement on rules and policies.  In addition, EPA establishes issue-
specific initiatives as  needed to deal with cross-media concerns.  For example, EPA  recently
launched a cross-program  initiative  on the regulation of electric utilities.  An initiative is also
underway to better harmonize EPA's place-based activities.

EPA has had considerable success in achieving its mission, and is confident that success will
continue in the future. The Agency's mission is already guided by statements of national policy
and specific national objectives, as outlined in major existing environmental statutes. Like  any
large organization, EPA must coordinate across disparate internal offices.  However, these
coordination issues would not disappear if the Agency were reorganized along different lines.
                                          1056

-------
Creating a new National Environmental Policy and  Quadrennial  Review  framework would
require a large investment of time and resources, but is not likely to substantially improve our
environmental results.

10.  Oversight of Delegation of States

Summary of Challenge:  A critical management challenge for EPA is overseeing its delegation
of programs to the states,  mostly due to differences between  state and federal policies,
interpretations,  strategies, and priorities.  While EPA has improved its oversight, particularly in
priority setting and enforcement planning with states, the Agency needs accurate data and
consistent policy interpretation to ensure effective oversight of all delegated regulatory and
voluntary programs. OIG believes EPA must address the limitations in the availability, quality,
and robustness of program implementation and effectiveness data.

Agency Response:   EPA acknowledges that state oversight is a very complex and changeable
arena.   Through federal statutes, implementing regulations, and  program  design, states are
allowed flexibility in how they manage and implement environmental programs. Within EPA,
national program managers are directly responsible for state oversight of individual programs.
The Agency has committees, workgroups, special projects and  initiatives to continuously
improve Agency programs delegated to states. Below are a few examples of these programs and
the efforts made to enhance oversight or correct issues with state delegation.

Improving Oversight through the State Review Framework:

As  noted by OIG,  the Enforcement Program's collaboration with the States to  develop and
implement the State Review Framework (SRF) is the cornerstone of efforts  in that program to
improve  oversight.   The SRF is a  program  management  tool used to provide consistent
assessment of EPA and State core Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,  and Resources Conservation
and Recovery Act enforcement and compliance assurance programs. The Framework enables
assessment of program effectiveness and identification of areas  for management improvement
that is  consistent  across all  EPA  Regions  and  States.    The   Framework  was designed
collaboratively by EPA and the Environmental Council of the States in 2004.

Based on the data and information from the SRF evaluations, on July 2, 2009, the Administrator
asked  the  Office of Enforcement and Compliance  Assurance,  and Office of Water, in
consultation with the States, to identify concrete  steps that EPA  can take  to enhance public
transparency about  water  enforcement programs,  strengthen  program  performance,  and
transform the information systems that support both water quality and compliance programs.

A Clean  Water Action  Plan  was  subsequently developed,  finalized and submitted to the
Administrator on October 15, 2009.  The Plan proposed three main actions to address water
pollution challenges: (1) revamp the  water enforcement program to focus on the pollution
sources that present the greatest threat to water  quality; (2)  strengthen  oversight of state
permitting and enforcement programs to improve results and provide greater consistency; and (3)
improve transparency and accountability, and invest in  21st century technology to provide more
accurate  and useful information to the  public and increase pressure for  better  compliance
                                          1057

-------
performance.  On June 22, 2010, OECA and OW jointly issued interim guidance to the regions
and the states to immediately initiate and implement certain actions, as outlined in the Plan, to
strengthen performance in the NPDES program.

Strengthening State-EPA Implementation of Water Programs:

Beginning in June 2008, ECOS Officers asked the Agency to provide more collaboration at the
national  level to  meet the challenges  of increasing workload and declining resources.  In
November of 2008 work with the States culminated in the creation of the Partnership Council of
the Office of Water and States (PCOWS) to 'test' the early and ongoing engagement of the States
in planning, budgeting, and implementation activities for the national water program. Since its
creation, PCOWS has met four times to discuss strategic priorities with the States, to ensure that
core and key program activities are given appropriate priority in budget decisions, and to identify
opportunities to maximize resources and reduce barriers in support of key joint priorities.

Improving State-EPA Collaborations through the NEPPS

Through the National Environmental Performance Partnership System EPA and the states have
developed  a working relationship  based on a clearer understanding  of mutual issues  and
priorities and improved allocation of roles  and responsibilities.  Building on this successful
platform, EPA and the states are working together to share the  workload more efficiently  and
effectively to achieve environmental and public health outcomes.  In FY2011, EPA and states
will be collaborating on a focused effort to identify opportunities for enhanced worksharing  and
resource and  workload flexibility in  order  to  maintain the  effectiveness  of core programs,
particularly in light of widespread state budget reductions due to the economic downturn.

11.  Ensuring Consistent Environmental Enforcement Compliance

Summary of Challenge:   GAO  reports that while EPA  has improved its oversight of state
enforcement programs by implementing the  State Review  Framework (SRF),  the Agency still
needs  to address  significant weaknesses in how  states enforce their environmental laws in
accordance  with federal requirements.  Specifically, GAO states that EPA needs to identify the
cause of poorly performing state enforcement programs, inform the public about how well states
are implementing  their enforcement responsibilities,  and  assess the performance of regional
offices in carrying out their state oversight responsibilities.  The Agency  must also address
problems in enforcement data and reporting.

Agency Response:  In FY 2004, the  Agency initiated the State Review Framework (SRF) to
address concerns about consistency in the minimum level of enforcement activity across states
and the oversight of state programs by EPA regions.  The SRF uses 12 core elements to assess
enforcement activities across three key programs: the Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (Title V),
the Clean Water  Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System (NPDES), and  the
Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA) Subtitle C.  The  12 core elements include
data  completeness,  data accuracy,  timeliness  of  data  entry,  completion  of  work plan
commitments, inspection coverage, completeness of inspection reports, identification of alleged
violations, identification of significant noncompliance, ensuring return to compliance, timely  and
                                          1058

-------
appropriate enforcement,  calculation of gravity and economic benefit penalty components, and
final assessed penalties and their collection.  The first round of reviews of 54 state and territorial
programs was completed in 2007.

During 2007-2008, EPA evaluated the first full round of the SRF to identify ways to streamline
the reviews  and other opportunities for further improvements.  Based on the reviews and the
evaluation, the Agency  identified four areas that were  recurring  issues  across  states  and
programs: data completeness  and accuracy;  failure to  identify and  report significant non-
compliance  and high priority  violations; failure to take timely enforcement;  and failure to
calculate and document penalties.  In September 2008, the Agency made key improvements and
initiated Round 2, which included additional and enhanced training for regions and  states,
streamlined  reporting through  a standard template, clearer elements,  improved  metrics, more
explicit guidance on incorporating local agencies into reviews, better understanding of where
consistency  is important,  a  streamlined review of reports, tracking  and management of the
implementation of recommendations, and additional  steps for communication and coordination
between regions and states.

The current SRF outlines  the process for uniformly addressing significant problems identified in
state programs.  First, the region  and  state define the state's attributes and deficiencies  and
develop a schedule for implementing needed changes.  Second, the region and state jointly
develop a plan to address performance, using established mechanisms such as Performance
Partnership Agreements,  Performance Partnership Grants,  or categorical grant agreements to
codify the plans.  Third, the region and state manage and monitor implementation of the plan to
ensure progress as planned and to identify and address issues as they arise.  Thirty-four Round 2
SRF reviews will be completed by the  end of 2010, including six reviews of Regional Direct
Implementation Programs.

In 2009, EPA  began to  make the SRF  reports publicly  available  on the Internet.   Recent
enhancements  to EPA's  website  enable  the Agency to also  publish on  the Internet the
recommendations for improvement from the reviews and the status of their implementation. By
making this  information public,  EPA has  increased the accountability  of  environmental
enforcement programs.

In FY2011, EPA initiated an effort to improve oversight of state enforcement programs. EPA
will streamline  and align  SRF metrics with the principles of the Clean Water Act Action Plan.
This will ensure that state programs are addressing the most important problems and the most
significant  violations.  EPA  expects that  this  re-focusing of state  programs  will improve
performance by directing limited resources  where they are most needed.  Also,  as part of the
streamlining effort, EPA  will develop a process to  review  and correct state data on an annual
basis.  Second, EPA will make public, via the internet, key information about  state program
performance gathered through oversight.  Third,  EPA will be  integrating  oversight of state
NPDES permitting and enforcement programs which will address performance issues resulting
from the bifurcated program structure in many  states and regions.

EPA has made substantial progress in improving state programs through the SRF.  The SRF will
help maintain a level of consistency across  state programs, ensuring that states meet minimum
                                          1059

-------
standards and implement fair and  consistent enforcement of environmental laws  across the
country.  EPA will continue to analyze trends in findings and track corrective actions that result
from the SRF, to ensure continuing improvement in state performance.

12.  Limited Capability to Respond to Cyber Security Attacks

Summary of Challenge:  OIG believes that EPA has limited capacity to effectively respond to
external network threats  and needs to develop an Agency-wide action plan to investigate and
combat current threats.  Although  EPA  currently monitors network traffic to identify hostile
traffic at its Internet choke points, the Agency remains challenged because it does not have the
resources (in equipment  or staff) to adequately assess attacks against its infrastructure.   The
Agency needs to aggressively  enhance  its cyber security capabilities and  address security
weaknesses to strengthen  its ability to detect and respond to network attacks.

Agency  Response:   EPA does not fully  agree  with OIG's  assertion.   However, it  does
acknowledge that, like other federal agencies, detecting, remediating  or eradicating malicious
software or Advanced Persistent Threats (APT) is a challenge for the Agency.  The Agency has
taken steps to increase security awareness and will continue  to manage the  threat through
Agency-wide vigilance and improved detection capabilities.

Last  year, the Agency  affirmed  a  position to  support  continuous  monitoring across the
Information Technology (IT) infrastructure, and has made significant investments in technology
to provide improved capability and increased visibility in the Agency's network.  The Agency is
implementing these new capabilities across the enterprise and  is on-track to  roll  out this
capability to -24,000 Agency workstations.  Also, the Agency has heightened  awareness and
vigilance across  the Agency's  Information  Security Officer (ISO) community  - sponsoring
training  opportunities  for  Agency  ISOs and incorporating an entire  security  track  into the
Agency's Skillport e-Learning portal.

In addition to in-house capabilities, EPA relies  on relationships  with other Federal Agencies
(e.g.,  Department of Homeland Security,  Federal Bureau of  Investigation) and the vendor
community to augment the Agency's cyber security capabilities - providing OEI information that
can be used to detect and defend Agency IT resources.  This community-based approach serves
the entire Government well by providing EPA valuable information and intelligence that may not
have  been  obtained  otherwise.   In  addition to these relationships, EPA is  leveraging existing
contracts to  augment  existing  contractor staff,  and is pursuing additional  contract support
specifically focused on the detection of Advanced Persistent Threats (APT).

The Agency relies on a community of distributed Information Security Officials to  effectively
manage the security of IT resources. The Agency is working  to ensure that the Information
Security Officials are  properly  recruited, trained, and  equipped to meet  current and future
security requirements.  The security  of Agency resources is not tied to any single tool, but rather
it  is tied to a knowledgeable, trained community of  security professionals who can  effectively
utilize available resources to protect the integrity of Agency IT assets.  EPA will  develop Plans
of Actions and Milestones (POAM) to specifically address the actions required to improve how
                                          1060

-------
the Agency can better recruit, develop, and train the Information Security Officials throughout
the Agency.

13.  Improving the Development and Use of Environmental Information

Summary of Challenge.  According to  GAO,  while EPA has invested considerable time and
resources into improving the environmental data needed to protect the environment, significant
gaps remain in environmental data needed in developing, assessing, and refining environmental
policy, including developing measures  to gauge the  effectiveness of that policy to produce
desired outcomes.  For  example, improved data is needed to focus the Agency's efforts on the
protection of the nation's streams, rivers, bays, lakes, and oceans.

Agency Response:   EPA's statutory and programmatic structure has driven the Agency to
collect environmental and exposure data in a fragmented fashion.   GAO believes  that EPA
should emphasize  the development and  use of environmental indicators and information as a
strategic resource and as a mechanism for ranking resource allocation and measuring success of
the Agency's policies and programs.

EPA  acknowledges the  challenges  it  faces in  improving the  development  and  use of
environmental information.  However, the Agency believes the issues raised  by  GAO  extend
beyond the  scope  of the Agency's responsibility. EPA lacks the statutory authorities and the
resources, to collect and manage environmental data and information as would be necessary to
address the challenge.   GAO cites the past proposal to establish a Bureau of Environmental
Statistics (BES) as a step to address the challenge.  While EPA does not take a position on this
proposal,  the  Agency notes that the  proposal would require Congressional  leaders to enact
legislation to establish a BES or equivalent.

14.  Addressing Workforce and Infrastructure Issues

Summary of  Challenge.  GAO believes that EPA lacks a comprehensive assessment of its
workload, workforce, and organizational structure needed to cost effectively meet its strategic
goals.  GAO states that until EPA performs such an assessment and more clearly aligns its
workforce planning with its strategic goals, it is at risk of not having the appropriately skilled
workforce it needs to effectively achieve its mission.

Agency Response: As part of ongoing resource management efforts, EPA has been exploring
how to maximize the  productivity of its limited staff and other resources.  During each year's
budget process, EPA reviews the staffing and funding levels,  and  allocation to address all
activities.  The Agency currently acknowledges Workforce Planning as an internal control issue
under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and has a study underway  that will provide
critical  background information  for  Agency leadership to  consider  when  making budget
allocation decisions.

In  February  2009,  the Agency procured a  contractor  to conduct  a  two-part  workload
benchmarking  study of six  major functions  that it  shares with other federal agencies (i.e.,
financial management, scientific research, regulatory development, enforcement, environmental
                                          1061

-------
monitoring, and permitting).  The study will help EPA expand its understanding of workload
drivers, major products, and staffing allocation alternatives to consider in these six functional
areas.

In June 2010, the Agency launched an EPA workload benchmarking baseline survey, the first
part of the two-part study. The survey was sent to about 1,200 front-line managers whose staff
work in one or more of the six functional areas across EPA Headquarters and Regional offices.
The  survey was completed in  July 2010 with an 83 percent response rate.   The contractor
recently finalized  the  report summarizing the baseline  survey results, including workload,
drivers, and products by each functional work area and by program and office, including regional
variation.  As a baseline  study, this  report will not provide information sufficient to determine
changes in workforce levels at this time.

The Agency launched the second part of the study in February 2011.  The results will be used to
compare EPA's data to other federal agencies (with comparable functions) and identify potential
best practices and/or methodologies  that EPA could potentially adopt.  The second part of this
study is scheduled for completion in September 2011.

In addition,  EPA  amended the OCFO FY 2012 annual planning  and budget guidance to
strengthen the current annual  planning and budget processes to help  address this challenge. A
more explicit requirement was added to more fully describe workload needs in determining FTEs
needed to accomplish Agency goals:  "...Congressional appropriation staff had alerted us to the
need for stronger, more detailed justification for FTE requests."  The  guidance required that the
Agency's  offices "be prepared to describe  specific  functions  and  workload and to  provide
backup analysis if asked." In addition, EPA agreed to incorporate this change in its next (multi-
year) policy document.
                                          1062

-------
                              EPA USER FEE PROGRAM

In FY 2012, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation.  These user fee programs and
proposals are as follows:

Current Fees: Pesticides

The FY 2012 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 and Registration Review programs
and a certain percentage supports the processing  of applications involving "me-too" or inert
ingredients.  In FY 2012, 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  the accelerated  pesticide
registration decision service.  This process  has introduced new  pesticides to the  market more
quickly.  In FY 2012, the Agency expects to collect $15 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 2012 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 $7 million will be deposited in FY 2012.
                                          1063

-------
    •   Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee

This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is administered by the Air and Radiation
Program. Fee collections began in August 1992. Initially, this fee was imposed on manufacturers
of light-duty vehicles, light- and heavy-duty trucks and motorcycles.  The fees cover EPA's cost
of certifying new engines  and  vehicles and monitoring  compliance of in-use engines and
vehicles. In 2004, EPA promulgated a rule that updated existing fees  and established fees for
newly-regulated vehicles and engines.  The  fees established for new compliance programs are
also imposed  on manufacturers  of heavy-duty,  in-use,  and  non-road vehicles and engines,
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).  In 2009, EPA
added fees for evaporative requirements for non-road engines.  EPA intends to apply certification
fees to additional industry sectors as new programs are developed.  In FY 2012, EPA expects to
collect $28.1 million from this fee.

By FY 2012, EPA plans to have updated the fees rule to collect an additional $7 million annually
compared to FY 2011. This $7 million reflects new costs that EPA will incur due to vehicle and
fuels data systems and lab modernization. To offset these increases, EPA will update its existing
Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance (MVEC)  fee program and  propose a new Fuels Fee
Program that will increase Agency fee collections by approximately $7.0  million annually.16
This includes:

    •   Initiating a rulemaking to establish a new Fuels Program Fee to recover eligible costs
       associated with the implementation of the new Renewable Fuels program and other core
       Fuels program activities, including the registration and reporting on fuels and fuel
       additives. This action is estimated to increase fee collections by about  $2.0 million
       annually.
    •   Updating the existing MVEC fee to capture expanded cost-recoverable activities
       associated with the development, operation,  and maintenance of the Agency's engine and
       vehicle compliance information system. This action is estimated to increase fee
       collections by about $2.0 million annually.
    •   Updating the existing MVEC Fee Rule to recover costs of the Lab Modernization Project
       currently being funded with Agency funds.  This action is estimated to increase fee
       collections by about $3.0 million annually.
 ' Note that this estimated increased fee revenue is contingent upon the lab receiving funding identified to date.
                                           1064

-------
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 beginning in FY 2012.

   •   Enhanced Registration Services

Legislative language will be submitted proposing to publish  a new fee schedule to collect an
additional $17 million in FY 2012 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

Legislative language will be submitted to allow the collection of an additional  $25 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 and registration review
activities.

   •   Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest

Legislative language will be submitted to  authorize the collection of user charges to support the
development  of an  electronic manifesting system  for generators and transporters of hazardous
waste.   The  Resource Conservation and  Recovery  Act (RCRA) requires  transporters of
hazardous waste to document  information on the waste's generator, destination, quantity, and
route. Currently the tracking system relies on paper copies that are not frequently digitized for
data analysis or quality control. The President's Budget proposes to collect fees from users of the
electronic manifesting system.  Use of electronic  records  will allow EPA to more efficiently
monitor and analyze future  waste shipments. Full implementation of the electronic system may
reduce industry reporting costs under RCRA by $200 million to $400 million annually.

Fee Proposals: Other

   •   Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee

Under  the current fee  structure, the Agency would collect  $1.8 million in FY 2012. Legislative
language will be submitted  to remove the statutory cap  in the  Toxic Substances Control Act on
Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fees.   In FY 2012,  EPA expects to  collect an additional $4
million by removing the statutory cap.
                                          1065

-------
   •   Energy Star Fees

The President's Budget proposes to begin collecting user fees from product manufacturers who
seek to label their products under EPA's Energy Star program. Since 1992, the Energy Star label
has served as an indicator of energy efficiency,  helping  consumers  and  businesses  select
qualifying products and, increasingly, Energy Star products  have  qualified for special rebates,
tax exemptions or credits, and procurement preferences. Fee collection would start in 2013 after
EPA undertakes a rulemaking process to determine products to be covered by fees and the level
of fees, and to ensure that a fee system would not discourage manufacturers from participating in
the program or result in a loss of environmental benefits.
                                          1066

-------
                             WORKING CAPITAL FUND

In FY 2012, the Agency begins its sixteenth 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 twenty-three permanent
members from the program and regional offices.

Four Agency  activities, provided in  FY  2011,  will continue into  FY 2012.   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
Resources Management,  and the Agency's  core accounting system and  relocation  services,
which  are both managed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.  Two new functions,
Background  Investigations,  managed  by   the  Office  of  Administration   and Resources
Management, and Invitational Travel, managed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, are
also being proposed for FY 2012.

The Agency's FY 2012 budget request includes resources for these six activities in each National
Program  Manager's submission, totaling approximately $206.4 million.  These  estimated
resources may be increased to incorporate program office's additional service needs during the
operating year. To the extent that these increases are subject to Congressional reprogramming
notifications, the Agency will comply with all applicable requirements.  In FY 2012, 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.
                                          1067

-------
                                  ACRONYMS






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
                                        1068

-------
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
                                       1069

-------
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act




FOIA: Freedom of Information Act




FPAS: Federal Property and Administration Services Act




FPA: Federal Pesticide Act




FPPA: Federal Pollution Prevention Act




FPR: Federal Procurement Regulation




FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act




FRA: Federal Register Act




FSA: Food Security Act




FUA: Fuel Use Act




FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act




FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (aka CWA)




GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act




GMRA: Government Management Reform Act




GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act




HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act




HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments




IGA: Inspector General Act




IPA: 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
                                       1070

-------
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
                                        1071

-------
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
                                       1072

-------
STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
     Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
            (Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management






State and Local
Air Quality
Management




State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory Authorities

CAA, Section 103






CAA, Section 103





CAA, Section 103



Eligible Recipients

Air pollution
control agencies as
defined in section
302(b) of the CAA





Air pollution
control agencies as
defined in section
302(b) of the CAA


Air pollution
control agencies as
defined in section
302(b) of the CAA

Eligible Uses

S/L monitoring and
data collection
activities in support
of the PM2.5
monitoring network
and associated
program costs.
S/L monitoring and
data collection
activities in support
of the air toxics
monitoring.

S/L monitoring
procurement
activities in support
oftheNAAQS



FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)

$42,500.0








$12,350.0







FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)

$38,250.0








$12,350.0







FY2012
Goal/
Objective

Goal 1,
Obj.2






Goal 1,

Obj.2



Goal 1, Obj.2



FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)

$34,000.0








$9,850.0





$15,000.0

                    1073

-------
Grant Title



State and Local
Air Quality
Management

























Radon





Statutory Authorities



CAA, Sections
105, 106


























TSCA, Sections 10
and 306;




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 176 A, or
section 184
NOTE: only the
Ozone Transport
Commission is
eligible.

State Agencies,
Tribes, Intertribal
Consortia



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).
Assist in the
development and
implementation of
programs for the
assessment and
mitigation of radon.
FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)


$171,130.0

105 grants



$600.0
106 grants


Total:
$226,580.0

















$8,074.0





FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)

$175,380.0

105 grants



$600.0
106 grants


Total:
$226,580.0

















$8,074.0





FY2012
Goal/
Objective

Goal 1,

Obj.2

























Goal 1,

Obj.2



FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$246,050.0

105 grants







$600.0
106 grants

Total:
$305,500.0














$8,074.0





1074

-------
Grant Title



Water Pollution
Control (Section
106)








Nonpoint Source
(NFS - Section
319)




Wetlands
Program
Development





Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)







Statutory Authorities



FWPCA, as
amended, Section
106; TCA in annual
Appropriations Acts.







FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 3 19(h);
TCA in annual
Appropriations Acts.


FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 104 (b)(3);
TCA in annual
Appropriations Acts.



SDWA,
Section 1443(a);
TCA in annual
Appropriations Acts.







Eligible Recipients



States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Interstate Agencies







States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia




States, Local
Governments,
Tribes, Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, Non-
Profit
Organizations
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia








Eligible Uses



Develop and carry
out surface and
ground water
pollution control
programs, including
NPDES permits,
TMDLs, WQ
standards,
monitoring, and
NFS control
activities.
Implement EPA-
approved state and
Tribal nonpoint
source management
programs and fund
priority projects as
selected by the state.
To develop new
wetland programs or
enhance existing
programs for the
protection,
management and
restoration of
wetland resources.
Assistance 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.
FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)


$229,264.0










$200,857.0






$16,830.0







$105,700.0










FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)

$229,264.0










$200,857.0






$16,830.0







$105,700.0










FY2012
Goal/
Objective

Goal 2,

Obj.2








Goal 2,

Obj.2




Goal 2,

Obj.2





Goal 2,

Obj. 1








FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$250,264.0










$164,757.0






$15,167.0







$109,700.0










1075

-------
Grant Title



Underground
Injection Control
(UIC)





Beaches
Protection









Hazardous Waste
Financial
Assistance




Brownfields











Statutory Authorities



SDWA, Section
1443(b);TCAin
annual
Appropriations Acts.




BEACH Act of
2000; TCA in
annual
Appropriations Acts.







RCRA,
Section 3011;
FY 1999
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





States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, Local
Governments







States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia




States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia









Eligible Uses



Implement and
enforce regulations
that protect
underground sources
of drinking water by
controlling Class I-
VI underground
injection wells.
Develop and
implement programs
for monitoring and
notification of
conditions for
coastal recreation
waters adjacent to
beaches or similar
points of access that
are used by the
public.
Development &
Implementation of
Hazardous Waste
Programs



Build and support
Brownfields
programs which will
assess contaminated
properties, oversee
private party
cleanups, provide
cleanup support
through low interest
loans, and provide
certainty for liability
related issues.
FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)


$10,891.0







$9,900.0










$103,346.0






$49,495.0











FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)

$10,891.0







$9,900.0










$103,346.0






$49,495.0











FY2012
Goal/
Objective

Goal 2,

Obj. 1





Goal 2,

Obj. 1








Goal 3,

Obi. 2
J



Goal 3,

Obj. 1









FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$11,109.0







$9,900.0










$103,412.0






$49,495.0











1076

-------
Grant Title
Underground
Storage Tanks
(UST)














Statutory Authorities
SWDA, 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.
Eligible Recipients
States
















Eligible Uses
Provide funding for
States' underground
storage tanks and to
support direct UST
implementation
programs.











FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)
$2,500.0
















FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)
$2,500.0
















FY2012
Goal/
Objective
Goal 3,

Obj. 3














FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$1,550.0
















1077

-------
Grant Title
Pesticides
Program
Implementation














Statutory Authorities
FIFRA, Sections 20
and 23; the FY
1999 Appropriations
Act (PL 105-276);
FY 2000
Appropriations Act
(P.L. 106-74); TCA
in annual
Appropriations Acts.











Eligible Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia














Eligible Uses
Implement the
following programs
through grants to
States, Tribes,
partners, and
supporters:
Certification and
Training (C&T) /
Worker Protection,
Endangered Species
Protection Program
(ESPP) Field
Activities, Pesticides
in Water,
Tribal Program, and
Pesticide
Environmental
Stewardship
Program.


FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)
$11,670.0-
States formula
(includes $246.0
PREP)



$800.0
Tribal



$500.0 PESP




$550.0 EJ
Total: $13,520.0
FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)
$11,670.0-
States formula
(includes $246.0
PREP)



$800.0
Tribal



$500.0 PESP




$550.0 EJ
Total: $13,520.0
FY2012
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,

Obj. 1














FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$11,390.0-
States formula
(includes $246.0
PREP)



$800.0
Tribal



$500.0 PESP



$450.0 EJ

Total: $13,140.0
1078

-------
Grant Title
Lead
Statutory Authorities
TSCA, Sections 10
and 404 (g); FY
2000 Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-74);
TCA in annual
Appropriations Acts.
Eligible Recipients
States, 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.
FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)
$1,557.0 National
Community
Based
Organizations
$8,359.5 404(g)
State/ Tribal
Certification
$4,647.5 404(g)
Direct
Implementation
Total: $14,564.0
FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)
$1,557.0 National
Community
Based
Organizations
$8,359.5 404(g)
State/ Tribal
Certification
$4,647.5 404(g)
Direct
Implementation
Total: $14,564.0
FY2012
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
Obj. 1
FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$1,588.0
National
Community
Based
Organizations
$8,556.5
404(g) State/
Tribal
Certification
$4,710.5
404(g) Direct
Implementation
Total: $14,855.0
1079

-------
Grant Title



Toxic Substances
Compliance











Pesticide
Enforcement




Statutory Authorities



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, Territories,
Federally
recognized Indian
Tribes, Intertribal
Consortia, and
Territories of the
U.S.









States, Territories,
Tribes, Intertribal
Consortia



Eligible Uses



Assist in developing,
maintaining and
implementing
compliance
monitoring
programs for PCBs,
asbestos, and Lead
Based Paint. In

addition,
enforcement actions
by :1) the Lead
Based Paint
program, and 2)
States that obtained
a "waiver" under the
Asbestos program.
Assist in
implementing
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs.
FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)


$ 1,485.0
Lead


$3,614.0
PCB/Asbestos



Total: $5,099.0




$18,711.0




FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)

$ 1,485.0
Lead


$3,614.0
PCB/Asbestos



Total: $5,099.0




$18,711.0




FY2012
Goal/
Objective

Goal 5,
Obj. 1











Goal 5,
Obj. 1



FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$1,510.0 Lead

$3 691 0
PCB/Asbestos



Total: $5,201.0





$19,085.0




1080

-------
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. These
grants supplement
the Exchange
Network
investments already
being made by
States and Tribes.

FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)
$10,000.0























FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)
$10,000.0























FY2012
Goal/
Objective
ESP

OEI





















FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$10,200.0























1081

-------
Grant Title



Pollution
Prevention






















Tribal General
Assistance
Program




Categorical
Grant: Multi-
Media Tribal
Implementation
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.
















Indian
Environmental
General Assistance
Program Act (42
U.S.C. 4368b); TCA
in annual
Appropriations Acts.
TCA in annual
Appropriations Acts


Eligible Recipients



States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia





















Tribal
Governments,
Intertribal
Consortia



Tribal
Governments


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.
Plan and develop
Tribal
environmental
protection programs.



Implement
Environmental
programs

FY 20 10 Enacted
(XI 000)


$4,940.0























$62,875.0






$0.0



FY2011
Annualized CR
(XI 000)

$4,940.0























$62,875.0






$0.0



FY2012
Goal/
Objective

Goal 4,

Obj.2





















Goal 3,

Obj.4




Goal 3,

Obj.4

FY2012
President's
Budget
Dollars (XI 000)
$5,039.0























$71,375.0






$20,000.0



1082

-------
              Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
        PROGRAM PROJECTS BY PROGRAM AREA
                    (Dollars in Thousands)

Science & Technology
dean Air and Climate
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Climate Protection Program
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification
Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
Enforcement
Forensics Support
Homeland Security
FY2010
Enacted


$9,963.0
$19,797.0
$11,443.0
$2,398.0
$91,782.0
$135,383.0

$453.0
$762.0
$2,095.0
$4,176.0
$7,486.0

$15,351.0

FY 2010
Actuals


$9,329.3
$20,126.8
$12,480.6
$2,381.7
$87,648.2
$131,966.6

$485.6
$808.0
$1,962.1
$4,242.7
$7,498.4

$15,245.3

FY2011
Annualized CR


$9,963.0
$19,797.0
$11,443.0
$2,398.0
$91,782.0
$135,383.0

$453.0
$762.0
$2,095.0
$4,176.0
$7,486.0

$15,351.0

FY2012
Pres Budget


$9,797.0
$16,345.0
$7,650.0
$0.0
$100,578.0
$134,370.0

$210.0
$370.0
$2,096.0
$4,082.0
$6,758.0

$15,326.0

2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted


($166.0)
($3,452.0)
($3,793.0)
($2,398.0)
$8,796.0
($1,013.0)

($243.0)
($392.0)
$1.0
($94.0)
($728.0)

($25.0)

                           1083

-------

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 Building
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
FY2010
Enacted

$18,576.0
$4,450.0
$23,026.0

$24,857.0
$499.0
$1,996.0
$14,305.0
$41,657.0
$593.0
$65,276.0

$4,385.0


$33,947.0
$19,177.0
$10,260.0
$9,534.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$13,953.7
$7,001.2
$20,954.9

$20,448.7
$438.3
$1,225.2
$15,585.7
$37,697.9
$593.0
$59,245.8

$4,054.0


$34,102.2
$21,934.3
$9,218.0
$7,587.2
FY2011
Annualized CR

$18,576.0
$4,450.0
$23,026.0

$24,857.0
$499.0
$1,996.0
$14,305.0
$41,657.0
$593.0
$65,276.0

$4,385.0


$33,947.0
$19,177.0
$10,260.0
$9,534.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$8,632.0
$2,747.0
$11,379.0

$17,382.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,696.0
$30,078.0
$579.0
$42,036.0

$4,108.0


$35,661.0
$20,195.0
$10,714.0
$9,951.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted

($9,944.0)
($1,703.0)
($11,647.0)

($7,475.0)
($499.0)
($1,996.0)
($1,609.0)
($11,579.0)
($14.0)
($23,240.0)

($277.0)


$1,714.0
$1,018.0
$454.0
$417.0
1084

-------

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
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research: Air, Climate and Energy
Research: Air, Climate and Energy
Global Change
Clean Air
Research: Air, Climate and Energy
(other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate and Energy
Subtotal, Research: Air, Climate and Energy
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Drinking Water
Water Quality
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources (other activities)
FY2010
Enacted
$72,918.0
$72,918.0

$3,750.0
$2,279.0
$537.0
$6,566.0


$20,822.0
$81,605.0
$9,022.0
$111,449.0
$111,449.0


$49,103.0
$61,918.0
$52.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$72,841.7
$72,841.7

$4,146.4
$2,285.9
$505.1
$6,937.4


$19,646.9
$74,670.2
$8,441.0
$102,758.1
$102,758.1


$50,346.0
$58,586.9
$0.0
FY2011
Annualized CR
$72,918.0
$72,918.0

$3,750.0
$2,279.0
$537.0
$6,566.0


$20,822.0
$81,605.0
$9,022.0
$111,449.0
$111,449.0


$49,103.0
$61,918.0
$52.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$76,521.0
$76,521.0

$3,839.0
$2,448.0
$544.0
$6,831.0


$20,805.0
$83,102.0
$4,093.0
$108,000.0
$108,000.0


$52,495.0
$66,229.0
$52.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$3,603.0
$3,603.0

$89.0
$169.0
$7.0
$265.0


($17.0)
$1,497.0
($4,929.0)
($3,449.0)
($3,449.0)


$3,392.0
$4,311.0
$0.0
1085

-------

Subtotal, Research: Safe and Sustainable
Water Resources
Subtotal, Research: Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Human Health
Ecosystems
Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities (other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable and Healthy
Communities
Subtotal, Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Human Health Risk Assessment
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
Endocrine Disruptors
Computational Toxicology
Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability (other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety and
Sustainability
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
FY2010
Enacted
$111,073.0
$111,073.0


$54,180.0
$71,698.0
$62,217.0
$188,095.0
$188,095.0

$42,899.0

$11,350.0
$20,044.0
$46,437.0
$77,831.0
$120,730.0

$3,637.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$108,932.9
$108,932.9


$54,324.6
$68,805.1
$59,873.0
$183,002.7
$183,002.7

$41,516.4

$12,471.9
$13,929.9
$48,819.3
$75,221.1
$116,737.5

$3,889.3
FY2011
Annualized CR
$111,073.0
$111,073.0


$53,180.0
$70,698.0
$62,217.0
$186,095.0
$186,095.0

$42,899.0

$11,350.0
$20,044.0
$46,437.0
$77,831.0
$120,730.0

$3,637.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$118,776.0
$118,776.0


$45,392.0
$60,905.0
$64,729.0
$171,026.0
$171,026.0

$42,400.0

$16,883.0
$21,209.0
$57,565.0
$95,657.0
$138,057.0

$3,787.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$7,703.0
$7,703.0


($8,788.0)
($10,793.0)
$2,512.0
($17,069.0)
($17,069.0)

($499.0)

$5,533.0
$1,165.0
$11,128.0
$17,826.0
$17,327.0

$150.0
1086

-------

Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Total, Science & Technology
Environmental Program & Management
Clean Air and Climate
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Methane to markets
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry
Climate Protection Program (other
activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Subtotal, Clean Air and Climate
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
FY2010
Enacted

$5,700.0
$848,049.0


$20,791.0

$52,606.0
$4,569.0
$16,685.0
$39,184.0
$113,044.0
$27,158.0
$99,619.0
$24,446.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$300,832.0

$5,866.0
$20,759.0
$11,295.0
$3,077.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$4,568.0
$817,677.7


$20,664.3

$42,138.0
$5,272.8
$15,990.7
$46,324.6
$109,726.1
$26,195.8
$103,224.6
$23,468.8
$6,159.4
$9,840.0
$299,279.0

$5,408.1
$19,253.0
$11,433.3
$2,827.9
FY2011
Annualized CR

$5,700.0
$846,049.0


$20,791.0

$52,606.0
$4,569.0
$16,685.0
$39,184.0
$113,044.0
$27,158.0
$99,619.0
$24,446.0
$5,934.0
$9,840.0
$300,832.0

$5,866.0
$20,759.0
$11,295.0
$3,077.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$0.0
$825,596.0


$20,842.0

$55,628.0
$5,616.0
$17,646.0
$32,529.0
$111,419.0
$34,096.0
$133,822.0
$0.0
$5,612.0
$9,495.0
$315,286.0

$3,901.0
$17,198.0
$9,629.0
$3,042.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted

($5,700.0)
($22,453.0)


$51.0

$3,022.0
$1,047.0
$961.0
($6,655.0)
($1,625.0)
$6,938.0
$34,203.0
($24,446.0)
($322.0)
($345.0)
$14,454.0

($1,965.0)
($3,561.0)
($1,666.0)
($35.0)
1087

-------

Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
Brownfields
Brownfields
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
Geographic Programs
Great Lakes Restoration
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Geographic Program: South Florida
Geographic Program: Mississippi River Basin
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
FY2010
Enacted
$40,997.0

$24,152.0

$25,622.0
$9,560.0
$99,400.0
$134,582.0

$146,636.0
$49,637.0
$3,278.0
$7,090.0
$18,258.0
$224,899.0

$475,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$50,000.0
$2,168.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$38,922.3

$24,465.3

$23,628.3
$8,792.6
$97,937.7
$130,358.6

$145,896.6
$49,043.2
$3,220.0
$9,567.4
$18,313.4
$226,040.6

$430,818.2
$53,192.7
$1,752.3
$10,087.1
$40,040.4
$2,321.5
$0.0
$6,141.9
FY2011
Annualized CR
$40,997.0

$24,152.0

$25,622.0
$9,560.0
$99,400.0
$134,582.0

$146,636.0
$49,637.0
$3,278.0
$7,090.0
$18,258.0
$224,899.0

$475,000.0
$50,000.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
$50,000.0
$2,168.0
$0.0
$7,000.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$33,770.0

$26,397.0

$0.0
$0.0
$119,648.0
$119,648.0

$191,404.0
$51,345.0
$0.0
$7,397.0
$18,072.0
$268,218.0

$350,000.0
$67,350.0
$0.0
$4,847.0
$19,289.0
$2,061.0
$6,000.0
$2,962.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
($7,227.0)

$2,245.0

($25,622.0)
($9,560.0)
$20,248.0
($14,934.0)

$44,768.0
$1,708.0
($3,278.0)
$307.0
($186.0)
$43,319.0

($125,000.0)
$17,350.0
$0.0
($2,153.0)
($30,711.0)
($107.0)
$6,000.0
($4,038.0)
1088

-------

Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE)
Geographic Program: Other (other
activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
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
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA
Personnel and Infrastructure
FY2010
Enacted
$6,000.0
$4,000.0

$1,500.0
$2,448.0
$3,325.0
$7,273.0
$608,441.0

$6,926.0

$99.0
$6,737.0
$6,836.0

$3,423.0
$0.0
$3,423.0
$6,369.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$7,671.7
$486.9

$996.0
$1,648.9
$1,901.0
$4,545.9
$557,058.6

$7,206.3

$156.1
$6,649.0
$6,805.1

$1,573.3
$2,690.9
$4,264.2
$6,300.3
FY2011
Annualized CR
$6,000.0
$4,000.0

$1,500.0
$2,448.0
$3,325.0
$7,273.0
$608,441.0

$6,926.0

$99.0
$6,737.0
$6,836.0

$3,423.0
$0.0
$3,423.0
$6,369.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$4,464.0
$1,399.0

$955.0
$2,384.0
$1,296.0
$4,635.0
$463,007.0

$4,257.0

$0.0
$1,065.0
$1,065.0

$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,978.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
($1,536.0)
($2,601.0)

($545.0)
($64.0)
($2,029.0)
($2,638.0)
($145,434.0)

($2,669.0)

($99.0)
($5,672.0)
($5,771.0)

($3,423.0)
$0.0
($3,423.0)
($391.0)
1089

-------

Subtotal, Homeland Security
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
International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
FY2010
Enacted
$23,554.0

$7,100.0
$9,038.0
$51,944.0
$17,024.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$14,933.0
$12,080.0
$130,800.0

$4,969.0
$8,628.0
$6,227.0
$19,824.0

$5,912.0
$97,410.0
$103,322.0

FY 2010
Actuals
$24,575.9

$5,715.8
$7,396.6
$52,787.0
$17,918.5
$3,488.5
$2,133.1
$13,426.7
$15,230.9
$13,040.9
$131,138.0

$4,997.8
$8,514.5
$6,359.8
$19,872.1

$5,881.7
$98,258.9
$104,140.6

FY2011
Annualized CR
$23,554.0

$7,100.0
$9,038.0
$51,944.0
$17,024.0
$3,028.0
$2,350.0
$13,303.0
$14,933.0
$12,080.0
$130,800.0

$4,969.0
$8,628.0
$6,227.0
$19,824.0

$5,912.0
$97,410.0
$103,322.0

FY2012
Pres Budget
$11,300.0

$10,795.0
$9,885.0
$52,268.0
$20,883.0
$2,953.0
$2,280.0
$14,613.0
$16,463.0
$15,070.0
$145,210.0

$4,912.0
$8,302.0
$6,233.0
$19,447.0

$6,837.0
$88,576.0
$95,413.0

2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
($12,254.0)

$3,695.0
$847.0
$324.0
$3,859.0
($75.0)
($70.0)
$1,310.0
$1,530.0
$2,990.0
$14,410.0

($57.0)
($326.0)
$6.0
($377.0)

$925.0
($8,834.0)
($7,909.0)

1090

-------

Administrative Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Legal Advice: Support Program
Regional Science and Technology
Integrated Environmental Strategies
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
Recovery Act Mangement and Oversight
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
FY2010
Enacted
$5,275.0
$1,147.0
$12,224.0
$42,662.0
$14,419.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$6,278.0
$123,597.0


$157,040.0
$13,514.0
$27,997.0
$116,687.0
$315,238.0
$82,834.0
$32,404.0
$25,487.0
$42,447.0
$0.0
$498,410.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$5,424.8
$1,313.8
$12,413.1
$42,826.7
$14,727.9
$3,146.2
$18,366.6
$19,041.3
$6,157.2
$123,417.6


$161,817.5
$2,539.3
$27,326.6
$118,555.4
$310,238.8
$86,883.5
$33,272.6
$24,311.6
$43,526.7
$22,237.5
$520,470.7
FY2011
Annualized CR
$5,275.0
$1,147.0
$12,224.0
$42,662.0
$14,419.0
$3,271.0
$18,917.0
$19,404.0
$6,278.0
$123,597.0


$157,040.0
$13,514.0
$27,997.0
$116,687.0
$315,238.0
$82,834.0
$32,404.0
$25,487.0
$42,447.0
$0.0
$498,410.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$5,386.0
$1,329.0
$11,685.0
$45,352.0
$15,873.0
$3,283.0
$17,509.0
$22,326.0
$5,867.0
$128,610.0


$170,807.0
$11,221.0
$29,266.0
$113,671.0
$324,965.0
$77,548.0
$34,119.0
$26,223.0
$44,680.0
$0.0
$507,535.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$111.0
$182.0
($539.0)
$2,690.0
$1,454.0
$12.0
($1,408.0)
$2,922.0
($411.0)
$5,013.0


$13,767.0
($2,293.0)
$1,269.0
($3,016.0)
$9,727.0
($5,286.0)
$1,715.0
$736.0
$2,233.0
$0.0
$9,125.0
1091

-------

Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide
Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
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
Pollution Prevention Program
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction
Program
FY2010
Enacted

$62,944.0
$42,203.0
$13,145.0
$1,840.0
$120,132.0


$0.0
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
$40,029.0
$14,379.0
$123,250.0

$8,625.0
$54,886.0
$18,050.0
$6,025.0
$14,329.0
FY 2010
Actuals

$62,696.4
$41,584.5
$13,508.9
$1,349.5
$119,139.3


$0.0
$71,171.2
$71,171.2
$39,366.0
$13,063.3
$123,600.5

$8,513.2
$53,458.7
$18,014.5
$7,193.0
$13,429.3
FY2011
Annualized CR

$62,944.0
$42,203.0
$13,145.0
$1,840.0
$120,132.0


$0.0
$68,842.0
$68,842.0
$40,029.0
$14,379.0
$123,250.0

$8,625.0
$54,886.0
$18,050.0
$6,025.0
$14,329.0
FY2012
Pres Budget

$58,304.0
$37,913.0
$12,550.0
$1,756.0
$110,523.0


$2,000.0
$64,854.0
$66,854.0
$40,266.0
$9,751.0
$116,871.0

$8,268.0
$70,939.0
$15,653.0
$6,105.0
$14,332.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted

($4,640.0)
($4,290.0)
($595.0)
($84.0)
($9,609.0)


$2,000.0
($3,988.0)
($1,988.0)
$237.0
($4,628.0)
($6,379.0)

($357.0)
$16,053.0
($2,397.0)
$80.0
$3.0
1092

-------

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
Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Total, Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
FY2010
Enacted
$101,915.0

$12,424.0

$0.0
$32,567.0
$25,940.0
$58,507.0

$2,944.0
$102,224.0
$105,168.0

$13,397.0
$208,626.0
$222,023.0

$16,950.0
$2,993,779.0


FY 2010
Actuals
$100,608.7

$12,833.9

$33,030.3
$29,796.8
$27,130.2
$89,957.3

$2,981.4
$99,394.2
$102,375.6

$9,783.7
$201,136.3
$210,920.0

$29,700.0
$2,988,874.6


FY2011
Annualized CR
$101,915.0

$12,424.0

$0.0
$32,567.0
$25,940.0
$58,507.0

$2,944.0
$102,224.0
$105,168.0

$13,397.0
$208,626.0
$222,023.0

$16,950.0
$2,993,779.0


FY2012
Pres Budget
$115,297.0

$12,866.0

$0.0
$27,058.0
$27,368.0
$54,426.0

$2,708.0
$104,616.0
$107,324.0

$13,417.0
$212,069.0
$225,486.0

$0.0
$2,876,634.0


2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$13,382.0

$442.0

$0.0
($5,509.0)
$1,428.0
($4,081.0)

($236.0)
$2,392.0
$2,156.0

$20.0
$3,443.0
$3,463.0

($16,950.0)
($117,145.0)


1093

-------

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
Indoor Air and Radiation
Radiation: Protection
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Compliance
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Environmental Justice
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
FY2010
Enacted
$44,791.0
$44,791.0


$8,070.0

$28,931.0
$37,001.0


$2,495.0

$9,975.0

$0.0
$1,216.0
$1,216.0

$795.0
$172,668.0
$10,570.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$49,164.4
$49,164.4


$9,652.1

$29,896.7
$39,548.8


$2,586.2

$9,337.9

$14.4
$1,181.8
$1,196.2

$891.0
$174,821.5
$9,196.2
FY2011
Annualized CR
$44,791.0
$44,791.0


$8,070.0

$28,931.0
$37,001.0


$2,495.0

$9,975.0

$0.0
$1,216.0
$1,216.0

$795.0
$172,668.0
$10,570.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$45,997.0
$45,997.0


$8,038.0

$33,931.0
$41,969.0


$2,487.0

$10,009.0

$0.0
$1,222.0
$1,222.0

$600.0
$169,844.0
$10,530.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$1,206.0
$1,206.0


($32.0)

$5,000.0
$4,968.0


($8.0)

$34.0

$0.0
$6.0
$6.0

($195.0)
($2,824.0)
($40.0)
1094

-------

Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Forensics Support
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
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
Exchange Network
IT / Data Management / Security
FY2010
Enacted
$8,066.0
$899.0
$2,450.0
$195,448.0


$198.0
$1,562.0
$1,760.0

$10,798.0
$9,626.0
$33,156.0
$53,580.0
$1,194.0
$56,534.0

$1,433.0

FY 2010
Actuals
$8,417.3
$756.5
$2,727.0
$196,809.5


$89.6
$1,179.9
$1,269.5

$6,087.1
$5,111.1
$40,360.7
$51,558.9
$1,194.0
$54,022.4

$1,438.6

FY2011
Annualized CR
$8,066.0
$899.0
$2,450.0
$195,448.0


$198.0
$1,562.0
$1,760.0

$10,798.0
$9,626.0
$33,156.0
$53,580.0
$1,194.0
$56,534.0

$1,433.0

FY2012
Pres Budget
$8,252.0
$0.0
$2,389.0
$191,615.0


$0.0
$0.0
$0.0

$5,908.0
$5,635.0
$29,119.0
$40,662.0
$1,172.0
$41,834.0

$1,433.0

2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$186.0
($899.0)
($61.0)
($3,833.0)


($198.0)
($1,562.0)
($1,760.0)

($4,890.0)
($3,991.0)
($4,037.0)
($12,918.0)
($22.0)
($14,700.0)

$0.0

1095

-------

Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
Operations and Administration
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: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
FY2010
Enacted
$785.0
$17,087.0
$17,872.0

$893.0
$746.0
$1,639.0


$44,300.0
$3,397.0
$8,299.0
$22,486.0
$78,482.0
$2,945.0
$24,684.0
$5,580.0
$27,490.0
$139,181.0

$21,264.0

FY 2010
Actuals
$524.3
$16,498.3
$17,022.6

$863.5
$658.7
$1,522.2


$44,239.0
$2,630.9
$7,633.1
$21,549.0
$76,052.0
$3,240.9
$23,820.8
$4,332.7
$28,192.2
$135,638.6

$22,525.3

FY2011
Annualized CR
$785.0
$17,087.0
$17,872.0

$893.0
$746.0
$1,639.0


$44,300.0
$3,397.0
$8,299.0
$22,486.0
$78,482.0
$2,945.0
$24,684.0
$5,580.0
$27,490.0
$139,181.0

$21,264.0

FY2012
Pres Budget
$728.0
$15,352.0
$16,080.0

$927.0
$750.0
$1,677.0


$47,112.0
$3,765.0
$8,282.0
$22,272.0
$81,431.0
$3,243.0
$24,097.0
$7,046.0
$22,252.0
$138,069.0

$17,706.0

2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
($57.0)
($1,735.0)
($1,792.0)

$34.0
$4.0
$38.0


$2,812.0
$368.0
($17.0)
($214.0)
$2,949.0
$298.0
($587.0)
$1,466.0
($5,238.0)
($1,112.0)

($3,558.0)

1096

-------

Human Health Risk Assessment
Superfund Cleanup
Superfimd: Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
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
FY2010
Enacted
$3,404.0

$202,330.0
$9,632.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$856,080.0
$1,306,541.0


$0.0

$797.0

$162.0


$696.0
$208.0
$904.0
$165.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$3,169.1

$225,840.0
$9,667.5
$33,605.0
$693,835.2
$6,575.0
$969,522.7
$1,414,791.3


$0.0

$756.8

$152.3


$696.0
$175.9
$871.9
$172.4
FY2011
Annualized CR
$3,404.0

$202,330.0
$9,632.0
$32,105.0
$605,438.0
$6,575.0
$856,080.0
$1,306,541.0


$0.0

$797.0

$162.0


$696.0
$208.0
$904.0
$165.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$3,342.0

$194,895.0
$9,263.0
$26,242.0
$574,499.0
$5,858.0
$810,757.0
$1,236,231.0


$832.0

$0.0

$0.0


$696.0
$220.0
$916.0
$163.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
($62.0)

($7,435.0)
($369.0)
($5,863.0)
($30,939.0)
($717.0)
($45,323.0)
($70,310.0)


$832.0

($797.0)

($162.0)


$0.0
$12.0
$12.0
($2.0)
1097

-------

Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
LUST Prevention
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
UST)
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Inland Oil Spill Programs
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and
Response
FY2010
Enacted
$1,115.0
$2,184.0

$11,613.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$109,613.0

$345.0
$113,101.0


$269.0
$0.0
$269.0

$1,998.0

$24.0

$14,944.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$1,312.0
$2,356.3

$17,901.7
$55,963.6
$35,030.1
$108,895.4

$422.5
$112,583.3


$263.7
$0.0
$263.7

$2,082.8

$24.0

$13,494.8
FY2011
Annualized CR
$1,115.0
$2,184.0

$11,613.0
$63,570.0
$34,430.0
$109,613.0

$345.0
$113,101.0


$269.0
$0.0
$269.0

$1,998.0

$24.0

$14,944.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$512.0
$1,591.0

$11,982.0
$63,192.0
$34,430.0
$109,604.0

$454.0
$112,481.0


$0.0
$138.0
$138.0

$2,902.0

$0.0

$19,472.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
($603.0)
($593.0)

$369.0
($378.0)
$0.0
($9.0)

$109.0
($620.0)


($269.0)
$138.0
($131.0)

$904.0

($24.0)

$4,528.0
1098

-------

Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Total, Inland Oil Spill Programs
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native
Villages
Brownfields Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
Targeted Airshed Grants
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG)
Categorical Grants
FY2010
Enacted


$438.0
$67.0
$505.0
S505.0

$639.0
$18,379.0


$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$13,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$17,000.0
$3,697,000.0

FY 2010
Actuals


$438.0
$51.4
$489.4
$489.4

$549.7
$16,904.4


$1,695,365.8
$1,143,484.5
$16,634.7
$133,697.0
$68.2
$115,807.2
$10,000.0
$24,503.5
$3,139,560.9

FY2011
Annualized CR


$438.0
$67.0
$505.0
$505.0

$639.0
$18,379.0


$2,100,000.0
$1,387,000.0
$13,000.0
$100,000.0
$0.0
$60,000.0
$20,000.0
$17,000.0
$3,697,000.0

FY2012
Pres Budget


$438.0
$98.0
$536.0
$536.0

$614.0
$23,662.0


$1,550,000.0
$990,000.0
$10,000.0
$99,041.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$2,659,041.0

2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted


$0.0
$31.0
$31.0
$31.0

($25.0)
$5,283.0


($550,000.0)
($397,000.0)
($3,000.0)
($959.0)
$0.0
($60,000.0)
($20,000.0)
($7,000.0)
($1,037,959.0)

1099

-------

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: Local Govt Climate Change
Categorical Grant: Multi-Media Tribal
Implementation
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: State and Local Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
FY2010
Enacted
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
$14,564.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$200,857.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0

$18,500.0
$210,764.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$10,194.2
$56,100.7
$10,618.9
$103,161.8
$2,863.1
$15,162.6
$9,500.0
$0.0
$194,818.5
$18,494.3
$13,195.4

$18,314.0
$207,627.1
$225,941.1
$4,484.8
$107,095.7
$8,572.4
$223,152.7
$202.6
$2,827.2
$5,401.9
$13,408.0
FY2011
Annualized CR
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,000.0
$103,346.0
$0.0
$14,564.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$200,857.0
$18,711.0
$13,520.0

$18,500.0
$210,764.0
$229,264.0
$4,940.0
$105,700.0
$8,074.0
$226,580.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$10,200.0
$103,412.0
$0.0
$14,855.0
$0.0
$20,000.0
$164,757.0
$19,085.0
$13,140.0

$11,300.0
$238,964.0
$250,264.0
$5,039.0
$109,700.0
$8,074.0
$305,500.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,201.0
$13,566.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
$200.0
$66.0
$0.0
$291.0
($10,000.0)
$20,000.0
($36,100.0)
$374.0
($380.0)

($7,200.0)
$28,200.0
$21,000.0
$99.0
$4,000.0
$0.0
$78,920.0
$0.0
$0.0
$102.0
$266.0
1100

-------

Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance
Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection
Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
TOTAL, EPA
FY2010
Enacted
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,116,446.0

$164,777.0
$4,978,223.0
($40,000.0)
$10,299,864.0
FY 2010
Actuals
$65,746.2
$11,323.6
$3,184.3
$63.0
$16,236.1
$1,121,749.1

$149,665.5
$4,410,975.5
$0.0
$9,850,520.0
FY2011
Annualized CR
$62,875.0
$10,891.0
$2,500.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,116,446.0

$164,777.0
$4,978,223.0
($40,000.0)
$10,297,864.0
FY2012
Pres Budget
$71,375.0
$11,109.0
$1,550.0
$0.0
$15,167.0
$1,201,389.0

$0.0
$3,860,430.0
($50,000.0)
$8,973,000.0
2012 Pres Budget
vs. 2010 Enacted
$8,500.0
$218.0
($950.0)
$0.0
($1,663.0)
$84,943.0

($164,777.0)
($1,117,793.0)
($10,000.0)
($1,326,864.0)
1101

-------
   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 also has 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 the Agency extend usage to mandatory programs to streamline
their application process.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04-0 1 60-24
020-00-04-00-04-0 1 60-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$480.000
$428.000
Integrated Acquisition Environment
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.

Contracting officers  also can 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
                                          1102

-------
Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, where the information is accessible to the public.
Vendors use this website to identify business opportunities in federal contracting.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$109.000
$133.000
Integrated Acquisition Environment Loans and Grants
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 Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-02-4300-24
020-00-01-16-02-4300-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$90.000
$90.000
Enterprise Human Resource Integration
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 has completed
migration to the federal eOPF  system. This initiative will benefit the Agency by reducing file
room maintenance costs and improve customer service for employees and productivity for HR
specialists.   Customer service will  improve for employees since they will have 24/7 access  to
view and print their official personnel documents and FIR specialists will no longer be required
to manually file, retrieve or mail personnel actions to employees thus improving productivity.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-03-1219-24
020-00-01-16-03-1219-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$388.000
$403.000
Recruitment One-Stop
Recruitment One-Stop  (ROS) simplifies the process of locating and applying for federal jobs.
USAJOBS is a standard job announcement and resume builder website.  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.
                                          1103

-------
By integrating with ROS, the Agency has eliminated the need for applicants to maintain multiple
user IDs to apply for federal jobs through various systems.  The vacancy announcement format
has been improved  for  easier  readability.  The system can maintain up  to five resumes per
applicant, which allows them to create and store resumes tailored to specific skills - this is an
improvement from our previous system that only allowed one resume per applicant. In addition,
ROS  has  a notification feature  that keeps  applicants  updated  on the current status of the
application, and provides a link to the agency website for detailed information.   This self-help
ROS feature allows  applicants to  obtain up-to-date information on the status of their application
upon request.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$107.000
$111.000
eTraining
This initiative encourages  electronic  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.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-03-1217-24
020-00-01-16-03-1217-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
80.000
80.000
Human Resources Management Line of Business
The  Human  Resources Management Line  of Business (HRM LoB)  provides  the  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 HRM 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  will benefit by supporting an effective
program management activity which evaluates provider performance, customer satisfaction, and
compliance with program goals, on an ongoing basis.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$66.000
$66.000
                                          1104

-------
Grants Management Line of Business
EPA anticipates the key benefit of Grants Management Line of Business  (GM LoB) 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 and
other GM LoB  solutions, will decrease agency reliance on manual and paper-based processing.
Consortium lead agencies,  or the COTS working group, will spread operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs, and development, modernization, and enhancement (DME) costs across agencies,
decreasing the burden that any one agency or agency administrative system 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 modern, efficient web-based  system 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 as 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
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,  or a COTS solution, will also provide grantees with online access to
standard post-award reports,  decreasing the number  of unique  agency-specific  reporting
requirements.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04- 1 3 00-24
020-00-04-00-04- 1 3 00-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$60.000
$60.000
Business Gateway
By creating a single entry-point 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.   This initiative  also  benefits  EPA  by
centralizing OMB reporting requirements under the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002.  EPA has over 100 initiatives, activities, and services directed at small business needs.
Many  of those initiatives  are highlighted  to  small  businesses through periodic features in
Business.gov.  This allows special  focus to  be brought to bear at critical times to the intended
audiences for those initiatives.  In addition, with the launch of the Business.gov Community,
small business users are able to interact on-line where they can discuss, share and ask questions
of other business  owners  as  well as industry and government  experts.  Business.gov also
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:
                                          1105

-------
             •   a single point of access for electronic regulatory forms;

             •   "plain English" compliance guidance, fact sheets and links to checklists for
                 small businesses; and

             •   an extensive Web  site with numerous  links to other internal and external
                 assistance sources.

Beginning in FY 2009, the Business Gateway  program has been fully funded by the Small
Business Administration (SBA), the managing partner.  EPA plans to  continue its partnership
with Business Gateway program, however, there is no EPA contribution required.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-0100-24
020-00-01-16-04-0100-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$0
$0
Geospatial Line of Business
The  Geospatial Line of Business (Geo LoB) is  an  intergovernmental project to improve the
ability of the public and government to use  geospatial information to support the business of
government and facilitate decision-making.  This initiative will reduce EPA costs and improve
our operations  in several  areas.  The investment in  FY  2011 and  FY 2012  will  provide the
necessary planning and coordination to begin providing significant benefits to EPA.

EPA's geospatial program has achieved a cost avoidance of approximately $2 million per year by
internally consolidating procurements for data and tools into multi-year enterprise licenses. The
Agency is currently applying these lessons learned for the  benefit of our partners in the Geo LoB
as well as colleagues  in state,  local and tribal  government organizations. The Geo LoB will
reduce costs by providing an opportunity for EPA and other agencies to share approaches on
procurement consolidation that  other agencies can follow. Throughout FY 2008-2010, EPA has
played a key leadership role in  a Geo LoB Workgroup to  explore opportunities for federal-wide
acquisition  of key geospatial  software and data.  In early FY 2010, the first of these acquisitions
became available to the federal community through  the  SmartBUY Program managed  by our
Geo LoB partners at GSA.

EPA benefits from Geo LoB in  FY 2012 are anticipated to be the same as in prior years.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$42.000
$42.000
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
                                          1106

-------
redundant docket systems; and improve agency regulatory  processes  and the  timeliness of
regulatory decisions.
The eRulemaking program's Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) currently supports
167  federal entities  including  all  Cabinet-level  Departments  and independent  rulemaking
agencies which collectively promulgate  over  90 percent of all federal  regulations each year.
FDMS 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
approximately 2,400  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, bookmarking,  email notification, and  commenting.   For
calendar year  2010,  EPA has posted 847 rules and proposed rules, 1,168 Federal Register
notices, and 97,215 public submissions in Regulations.gov. EPA also posted 21,268 documents
that were supporting and related materials associated with other postings.  Overall, EPA provides
public access to nearly 556,000 documents mRegulations.gov.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
020-00-01-16-01-0060-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$613.000
$1,000.000
E-Travel
E-Travel provides EPA with  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.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-01-03-0220-24
020-00-01-01-03-0220-24
EPA Service Fee (in
thousands)
$1,106.000
$1,106.000
Financial Management Line of Business
The Financial Management Line of Business (FM LoB) is a multi-agency effort whose goals
include: achieving process improvements and cost  savings in the acquisition,  development,
implementation, and operation of financial management systems. By incorporating the same FM
LoB-standard processes as those used by central agency systems, interfaces among financial
systems will be streamlined and the quality of information available for decision-making will be
improved. In addition, EPA 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.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$45.000
$45.000
                                          1107

-------
Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business
The Budget Formulation and Execution Lines of Business (BFE LoB) allow EPA and other
agencies to access budget-related benefits and services. The Agency has the option to implement
LoB sponsored tools and services.

EPA has benefited from the BFE LoB by sharing valuable information on what has or hasn't
worked on  the use  of different  budget systems  and software. This  effort has created a
government only capability for electronic collaboration (Wiki) in which the Budget Community
website allows EPA to share budget information with OMB (and other federal agencies).  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 budget-related training to EPA budget employees on OMB's MAX budget system, and
on Treasury's FACTS II statements explaining how it ties to the budget process.
Fiscal Year
2011
2012
Account Code
010-00-01-01-04-3200-24
010-00-01-01-04-3200-24
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
$105.000
$105.000
                                         1108

-------
                         SUPERFUND SPECIAL ACCOUNTS17

Section 122(b)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to retain and use funds received pursuant to an agreement with a
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) to carry out the purpose of that agreement.  EPA retains
such funds in special accounts, which are sub-accounts in the Superfund Trust Fund. Pursuant to
the specific agreements, which typically take the form of an Administrative Order on Consent or
Consent Decree, EPA uses special account funds to finance site-specific  CERCLA response
actions  at the site for which the account was established.  Through the use  of special accounts,
EPA pursues its "enforcement first" policy - ensuring responsible parties pay for cleanup - so
that appropriated resources from the  Superfund Trust  Fund  are conserved for sites where no
viable  or  liable PRPs can be  identified.   Both special  account resources and appropriated
resources are critical to the Superfund program.

Special  account funds are used to conduct many  different  site-specific  CERCLA  response
actions, including, but not limited to, investigations to determine the extent of contamination and
appropriate remedy needed, construction  and implementation  of  the remedy, enforcement
activities,  and post-construction activities. EPA also may provide special account funds to a PRP
who agrees  to  perform  work  under  an  agreement,  as  an incentive  (in  the form  of  a
reimbursement) to perform additional work beyond the PRP's fair share at the site, which EPA
might otherwise have to conduct using appropriated resources. Because response actions may
take many years, the full use of special account funds also may take many years.  Pursuant to the
agreement, once site-specific work is complete and site risks are addressed, EPA  may use special
account funds to reimburse EPA for site-specific costs incurred using appropriated resources
(e.g., reclassification), allowing the latter resources to be allocated to other sites.  Any remaining
special  account funds are generally transferred to the Superfund Trust Fund,  where they are
available for future appropriation by Congress to further support cleanup at other  sites.

Since the  inception of special accounts  through the  end of FY  2010,  EPA has  collected
approximately $3.3  billion from PRPs and earned approximately $378.6 million in  interest. In
addition, EPA has transferred over  $14.1 million to the  Superfund Trust Fund. As of the end of
FY 2010,  over $1.6 billion has been disbursed to  finance site response actions and over $246.5
million  has been obligated but not yet disbursed. EPA is carefully managing approximately $1.8
billion that was available as of October 1, 2010 and  has  developed multi-year plans to use these
funds as expeditiously as possible.   The majority of accounts (68%) have an available balance of
less than  $500,000, while 3% of  accounts have approximately 61% of the  total resources
available.   The following table illustrates the cumulative status of open and closed accounts, FY
2010 program activity, and planned multi-year uses of the available balance.
17 House Report 111-180 of the FY 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill
directs the Agency to include in its annual budget justification a plan for using special account funds expeditiously. This
information is being provided in response to this request.
                                           1109

-------
                         Special Accounts:
FY 2010 Program Actuals and Future Multi-Year Program Resource Plan
Account Status1
Cumulative Open
Cumulative Closed
FY 2010 Inputs and Outputs to 2009 End Of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available
Balance










2009 EOFY Available Balance
FY 20 10 Activities
+ Receipts
- Transfers to Superfund Trust Fund (Receipt Adjustment)
+ Interest Earned
- Net Change in Unliquidated Obligations
- Disbursements - For EPA Incurred Costs
- Disbursements - For Work Party Reimbursements under Final
Settlements
- Reclassifications
2010 EOFY Available Balance2
Multi-Year Plans for EOFY 2010 Available Balance






2010 EOFY Available Balance
- Estimates for Future EPA Site Activities3
- Estimates for Potential Disbursement to Work Parties Identified in
Final Settlements4
- Estimates for Reclassifications for FYs 201 1-201 35
- Estimates for Transfers to Trust Fund for FYs 201 1-201 35
- Available Balance To Be Assigned6
Number of
Accounts
939
84
$ in Thousands
$1,342,713.7

$723,261.9
($2,510.0)
$6,258.2
($62,295.9)
($176,037.1)
($9,956.0)
($26.228.3)
$1,795,206.4
$ in Thousands
$1,795,206.4
$1,676,783.0
$42,169.1
$60,778.4
$12,628.7
$2,847.2
1 FY 2010 data is as of 10/01/2010. The 2009 End of Fiscal Year (EOFY) Available Balance is as of 10/01/2009.
2 Numbers may not add due to rounding.
3 "Estimates for EPA Future Site Activities" includes all response actions that EPA may conduct or oversee in the
future, such as removal, remedial, enforcement, post-construction activities as well as allocation of funds to
facilitate a settlement to encourage PRPs to perform the cleanup. Planning data are multi-year and cannot be used
for annual comparisons.
4 "Estimates for Potential Disbursements to Work Parties Identified in Finalized Settlements" includes those funds
that have already been designated in a settlement document, such as a Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent, to be available to a PRP for reimbursements but that have not yet been obligated.
5 "Reclassifications" and "Transfers to the Trust Fund" are estimated for three FYs only.
6 Planning data were recorded in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) as of 10/19/2010 in reference to special account available balances as of
10/01/2010. Receipts incurred in the last quarter of the fiscal year may not have been fully planned for use in
CERCLIS at the time of data entry and are reflected in "Available Balance To Be Assigned."
                               1110

-------
                  FY 2011 HIGH PRIORITY PERFORMANCE GOALS

Responding to the President's challenge to deliver  a government that  works  -  one that  is
effective,  efficient, fair, and transparent, EPA identified a limited number of near-term  High
Priority Performance Goals (Priority Goals) for its programs.  In FY 2012, EPA will continue  to
track progress towards its Priority Goals and will update goals as necessary and appropriate.

Below are the Agency's FY 2011 Priority Goals.  The six submitted Priority Goal statements are
as follows:

EPA will improve the country's ability to measure and control Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.
Building a foundation for action is essential.

    1.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mandatory Reporting Rule
       By June 15,  2011, EPA will make publically available 100 percent of facility-level GHG
       emissions data submitted to EPA in accordance with the GHG Reporting Rule, compliant with
       policies protecting Confidential Business Information (CBI).

    2.  Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Light Duty Vehicles
       In  2011, EPA, working with DOT, will begin implementation of regulations designed to reduce
       the GHG emissions from light duty vehicles sold in the US starting with model year 2012.

Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities. EPA will take
actions over the next two years to improve water quality.

    3.  Improve Water Quality: Chesapeake Bay
       Chesapeake  Bay watershed states (including the District of Columbia) will develop and submit
       approvable Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of CY 2010 and Phase II plans by
       the end of CY 2011 in support of EPA's final Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load
       (TMDL).

    4.  Improve Water Quality: Federal Clean Water Enforcement
       Increase pollutant reducing enforcement actions in waters that don't meet water quality standards,
       and post results and analysis on the web.

    5.  Improve Water Quality: Drinking Water Standards
       Over the next two years, EPA will initiate review/revision of at least 4 drinking water standards
       to  strengthen public health protection.

EPA will ensure that environmental health and protection is delivered to our communities.

    6.  Brownfields Area- Wide Planning Pilot Program
       By 2012 EPA will have initiated 20 enhanced Brownfields community level projects that
       will include a new area-wide planning effort to benefit under-served and economically
       disadvantaged communities.  This will allow those communities to assess and address a
       single large or multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing
       area-wide planning to enable redevelopment of Brownfields  properties on a broader
       scale. EPA  will provide technical assistance,  coordinate its enforcement, water and air
       quality programs, and work with other Federal agencies, states, tribes and local
                                           llll

-------
governments to implement associated targeted environmental improvements identified in
each community's area-wide plan.
                                  1112

-------
EPA IG Comments on FY 2012 Budget
              1113

-------
Vl£0 ST4
     ,.
     f
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                        JAN  1 2 2011


   The Honorable Jacob J. Lew
   _..   4   „„,.    -,.             , _  ,   .                             THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
   Director, Office of Management and Budget
   Executive Office of the President
   725 17th Street, NW
   Washington, D.C. 20503

   Dear Mr. Lew:
         In the Fall of 2008, Congress amended The Inspector General Act 1978, 5 U.S.C.
   app3, to provide Inspectors General with the opportunity to comment if we believe the
   budget request for our operations would not be sufficient to perform the duties of the Office
   of Inspector General (OIG).  Specifically, § 6(f)(3)(E) provides that:

         The President shall include in each budget of the United States Government
         submitted to Congress—any comments of the affected Inspector General with
         respect to the proposal if the Inspector General concludes that the budget submitted
         by the President would substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing
         the duties of the office.

         Based on the funding level for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 that is being proposed for the
   Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) OIG, I am providing the following comments
   for inclusion in the President's FY 2012 Budget.

         First, I would like to express my gratitude to the EPA leadership, as well as those in
   the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) who have afforded the OIG the opportunity
   to provide additional information in support of the investment we are requesting for our
   cyber investigations and homeland security oversight activities. We believe this is a
   critical new investment that requires sufficient funding to ensure adequate oversight by the
   OIG.

         I recognize the  seriousness of our country's economic challenges and I support the
   President's commitment to conserve and maximize scarce Federal resources.  I believe the
   investment that the OIG is requesting meets those goals. With future resources being
   reduced, and existing resources stretched further, there is an even greater urgency for the
   investment in oversight to promote efficiency and address the heightened risks of fraud,
   waste and abuse in EPA programs. For FY 2012, the OIG requested an increase of $7.4
   million above the President's FY 2011 request.  As a result of further discussions with
   OMB, our proposed budget for FY 2012 has been increased, but is still more than
   $5 million below our request.
           Recycled/Recyclable .Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Poslconsumer)
                                  1114

-------
       The Obama Administration and Congress have expressed concerns about the
increasing vulnerability of the Federal IT infrastructure to potential cyber security threats.
As the Inspector General, I regard EPA's cyber vulnerability a significant management
challenge that will extend to and beyond FY 2012. Addressing these risks requires highly
specialized detection, prevention, and enforcement skills and tools.

       While we have been funding our limited cyber activities through a reallocation of
existing resources, we cannot continue to do so without creating accountability and risk
vulnerability gaps in our oversight of other Agency programs and operations.

       As the Inspector General, I feel an obligation under the law to communicate my
concern that such a reduction to our request would result in the OIG not being able to fund
its cyber security initiative to the level we believe necessary to address current and future
risks.
                                         Sine
                                         Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
cc: The Honorable Robert Perciasepe
    The Honorable Jeffrey Zients
    The Honorable Phyllis Fong
                                    1115

-------
               American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weekly Budget Status Update (whole dollars)
                                   As of February 10, 2011 (Dollars in Thousands)
Approp
STAG
STAG
STAG
STAG
Program Project Description
Clean Water SRF
Drinking Water SRF
Diesel Emissions Grants2
Brownfields
Subtotal, STAG2
LUST
EPM
SF
IG
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Management and Oversight
r\
Superfund: Remedial
Audits, Evaluations, &
Investigations
Agency Total
Total
Appropriation
$4,003,158
$1,945,842
$294,000
$96,500
$6,339,500
$197,000
$81,500
$582,000
$20,000
$7,220,000
Rescissions
$0
$0
$0
$33
$3
$9,2004
$10,0004
$6,7023'4
$0
$25,905
Total
Obligations
$4,003,148
$1,945,842
$293,924
$96,356
$6,339,270
$187,725
$44,932
$578,098
$10,141
$7,160,166
Outlays
$2,995,928
$1,503,320
$184,085
$35,768
$4,719,101
$105,486
$35,291
$436,584
$10,127
$5,306,589
Percent
Obligated1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
63%
100%
51%
99.5%
Percent
Expended
75%
77%
62%
36%
74%
56%
49%
76%
51%
74%
1. The percent obligated is calculated from the total appropriation minus rescissions.
2. Includes transfers into fiduciary reserves: STAG $70 thousand, including Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants $33.4 thousand;
Superfund $150 thousand.
3. Rescissions made in accordance with the Pay-it-Back Act (P.L. 111-203).
4. Rescissions made in accordance with PL 111-226.
                                                       1116

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Appendix B - Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Performance Report
   Introduction	1120
   How the Report Is Organized	1133
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change	1134
   Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air	1138
   Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air	1143
   Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer	1145
   Objective 1.4: Radiation	1148
   Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions	1151
   Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research	1155
   GOAL1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE	1157
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water	1174
   Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health	1177
   Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality	1180
   Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research	1184
   GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER	1186
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration	1206
   Objective 3.1: Preserve Land	1209
   Objective 3.2: Restore Land	1212
   Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research	1220
   GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION	1222
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	1237
   Objective 4.1: Chemicals, Organisms,  and Pesticide Risk	1241
   Objective 4.2: Communities	1251
   Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystem	1254
   Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research	1261
   GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS	1265
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	1308
   Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance	1312
   Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
   Innovation	1321
   Objective 5.3: Build Tribal Capacity	1326
                                       1117

-------
   Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and Research	1328
   GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP	1330
EPA'S ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS	1343
FY 2010 EFFICIENCY MEASURES	1348
                                   1118

-------
    Environmental Protection Agency's
Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Performance Report
                   1119

-------
Introduction

Each year, in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) produces a. Performance and Accountability Report to
present its programmatic, financial, and management performance results to Congress, the
President, and the public. For fiscal year (FY) 2010, EPA has adopted an alternative approach for
fulfilling the Agency's GPRA annual reporting requirements to streamline the performance
reporting process and better integrate performance results into the Agency's budget.

Under the new approach, EPA is submitting two reports rather than a single consolidated report:

    •  The FY 2010 Agency Financial Report (APR)., issued in November 2010, summarizes
       EPA's financial results and presents its audited financial statements. It also includes
       EPA's FY 2010 Management Integrity Report and FY 2010 Audit Management Report.
       The APR is available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/perf_report/FY_2010_EPA_AFR.pdf.

    •  The FY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR), issued as part of the FY 2012 Annual
       Performance Plan and Budget, presents detailed environmental and program
       performance results achieved by the Agency in FY 2010.

All EPA planning and performance reports are available at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/
                            Reliability of EPA's Performance Data
           Data used to report performance results are reliable and as complete as possible. Because
           improvements in human health and the environment may not become immediately apparent,
           there might be delays between the actions we have taken and results we can measure.
           Consequently, we cannot provide results data for several of our performance measures for this
           reporting year. When possible, however, we have portrayed trend data to illustrate progress over
           time. We also report final performance results for prior years which became available in FY
           2010.
           Lisa P. Jackson                                   Date
           Administrator
                                            1120

-------
FY 2010 Annual Performance Report (APR)

EPA's FY 2010 APR presents environmental and program performance results achieved in FY
2010 under the goals established in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm) and against the performance measures and targets
established in the FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Budget
(http ://www. epa. gov/budget/index. htm). The FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Budget
was based on the performance framework established in EPA's 2009-2014 Strategic Plan
Change Document, an internal working document which bridged EPA's 2006-2011 and FY
2011-2015 Strategic Plans and provides the basis for the four-year Performance Results Tables
included in this report.

The APR presents FY 2010 accomplishments and challenges, provides trend data, and explains
significant variations between performance targets and actual results. In presenting FY 2010
performance results with the President's FY 2012 Annual Performance Plan and Budget, the
Agency is striving to more closely connect the results the Agency has been achieving with the
direction it is taking in the future.

FY 2010 Advances in Performance Management

During FY 2010, EPA developed and implemented a number of key initiatives to further
strengthen the Agency's performance management system.

New Strategic Plan. The Agency published its FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan, which
provides a blueprint for accomplishing the Agency's priorities over the next five years. The
streamlined, executive-level plan presents five strategic goals for advancing EPA's
environmental and human health outcomes and the Administrator's priorities. The plan also
presents five cross-cutting fundamental strategies designed to transform how EPA delivers
environmental and human health protection. EPA will begin reporting performance results under
the new Strategic Plan in FY 2011. The FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm.
Priority Goals. In FY 2010, EPA established a limited number of performance goals (Priority
Goals), a new component of the Administration's performance management framework. Priority
Goals communicate the performance improvements EPA will accomplish relative to its priorities
using existing legislative authority and resources. These specific, measureable, two-year priority
goals align with the Agency's long-term strategic and annual measures and  serve as key
indicators  of progress toward the Agency's five strategic goals. For additional information see,
http://goals.performance.gov/.
                                         1121

-------
                                  EPA Priority Goals
                    (as shown in the FY 2011 Congressional Budget Justification)

                              http://goals.performance.gov/

EPA will improve the country's ability to measure and control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Building a foundation for action is essential.

   •   By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publicly available 100 percent of facility-level GHG
       emissions data submitted to EPA in compliance with the GHG Reporting Rule.

   •   In 2011, EPA working with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will begin
       implementation of regulations designed to reduce the GHG emissions from light duty
       vehicles sold in the United States starting with model year 2012.

Clean water is essential for our quality of life and the health of our communities. EPA will take
actions over the next two years to improve water quality.

   •   Chesapeake Bay watershed states (including the District of Columbia) will develop and
       submit Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of calendar year (CY) 2010 and
       Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011 in support of EPA's final Chesapeake Bay Total
       Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which will result in pollution limits needed to restore
       Chesapeake Bay water quality.

   •   Increase pollutant reducing enforcement actions in waters that do not meet water quality
       standards, and post results and analysis on the web.

   •   Over the next two years, EPA will initiate the review/revision of at least four drinking
       water standards to strengthen public health protection.

EPA will ensure that environmental  health and  protection is delivered to our communities.

   •   By 2012, EPA will have initiated 20 enhanced Brownfields community level projects that
       will include a new area-wide planning effort to benefit under-served and economically
       disadvantaged communities.  This will allow those communities to assess and address a
       single large or multiple Brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-
       wide planning to enable redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale. EPA
       will provide technical assistance; coordinate its enforcement, water, and air quality
       programs; and work with other federal agencies, states, tribes, and local governments to
       implement associated targeted environmental improvements identified in each
       community's area-wide plan.
                                           1122

-------
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Reporting. Since the end of FY
2009, EPA has tracked program performance for six key environmental programs funded
through the ARRA that invest in clean water and drinking water projects, implement diesel
emission reduction technologies, clean up leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), revitalize
and reuse Brownfields, and clean up Superfund sites. To ensure accountability and demonstrate
progress toward meeting ARRA goals, EPA provides quarterly performance updates consistent
with the timing of quarterly recipient reporting and weekly financial and activity reports. The
Agency also tracks performance for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) work funded by the
ARRA. These performance reports are available at http://epa.gov/recovery/plans.htmltfplans.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships. In FY 2010, EPA worked in partnership with
states and tribes to develop and implement environmental programs and, where appropriate, used
Agency expertise to bolster state and tribal efforts. Many state governments are running deficits
and implementing budget cuts due to the ongoing effects of the economic downturn. In FY 2010,
EPA increased its consultation with state officials on rulemaking and accelerated efforts to
identify opportunities for enhanced work sharing and resource and workload flexibility. In
testimony to Congress on the FY 2011 Budget, the Administrator emphasized the need to
provide strong funding to support state governments. Within eight months of the President's
memorandum on Tribal Consultation, EPA finalized a Tribal Consultation Plan, which will be
implemented in calendar year (CY) 2011. The policy ensures consistent implementation of
EPA's 1984 Indian Policy and Executive Order (EO) 13175. It will result in broad consultation
and coordination with tribes and help to strengthen EPA-tribal partnerships. For additional
information, see: http://www.epa.gov/indian/consultation/index.htm.
                                          1123

-------
                 Highlights    of    Environmental
Region 10 Reducing Diesel Emissions in
Western United States
In 2010, EPA awarded over $18.4 million in Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grant funds through
the West Coast Collaborative (WCC). These awards
assist states, cities, tribes, and non-profits in reducing
Jiesel emissions and protecting public health, When
combined with matching funds of $29.4 million from
the private sector and state and local air agencies in
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada,
Oregon, and Washington, the DERA grant funds were
leveraged into almost $700 million in monetized health
benefits from reductions in fine participate matter
emissions- Upgrading 9,265 diesel engines  resulted in
emission reductions of 11,034 tons of nitrogen oxide
and 43S tons of paniculate matter. Many of these
projects address air toxics risk in environmental justice
communities.
http://westcoastcollaborative.org/


Reg/on 9  Enhancing Wastewater Collection
and Treatment in Hawaii
A multibillion dollar settlement was reached with the
city and county of Honolulu, Hawaii, to address its
aging wastewater collection and treatment system. The
agreement calls for aggressive action to upgrade the
city's sewage system and establishes a long-term sched-
ule for construction of secondary treatment at its Sand
Island and Honouiiuli plants. The cost of this work is
estimated to exceed $3.5 billion. In addition, the city
will pay a $1.6 million tine to resolve violations of the
federal Clean Water Act for prior spills into the ocean.
This settlement will significantly reduce both the pub-
lic health risk caused by exposure to pathogens in raw
sewage and the amount of harmful pollutants entering

http ://www.epa.go v/region9/water/npdes/compl iance.h tml
Reg/on 7 Educating Schools on Mercury
In 2010, Region 7 responded to 21 accidental mercury
spills and releases, many of which had occurred at
schools. On average, accounting for chemistry lab
jars, thermometers, thermostats, and barometers,
each school possesses approximately 2 Ib of elemental
mercury. A Region 7 cross-media team developed
"Mercury: An Educator's Toolkit," containing grade-
appropriate videos and pamphlets to inform and
educate teachers, children, and parents about the dan-
gers of mercury. The toolkit was distributed to all 7,463
elementary, middle, and high schools in Region 7.
http ;//www. epa .go v/reg ionO 7/mercu ry/
Region 8 Protecting Public Health From Adverse
Chemical Exposure
In 2010, Region 8 continued to protect and clean up our com-
munities by removing 98,000 pounds of hazardous chemicals from
227 schools, protecting 79,000 children, including 17,000 Native
American students in 78 schools in Indian Country. Region 8 also
reduced public chemical exposure by cleaning up extensive lead
contamination at the Eureka Mills site in Utah, and removing
multi-contaminants at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal site in Colo-
rado, where 2,500 acres were added to an existing wildlife refuge.
http:// www.epa.gov/region&/conservation_i:ecyc ling/ tgb.si.ht ml
h ftp ://www. epa.gov/region 8/su pe rfu nd/u t/eu reka
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfimd/co/rkymtnarsenal/
Reg/on 6 Improved Air Quality
Region 6 saw improved air quality in 2010, which allowed Houston,
Texas, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana—both previous severe ozone
nonattainment areas— to achieve attainment with the federal
eight-hour ozone standard and receive an exemption from Clean Air
Act penalty fees. This progress resulted from aggressive controls in
local, state, and federal clean air plans; new national air toxic and
motor vehicle rules; and targeted enforcement, including federal
consent decrees. Other Region 6 areas (Beaumont-Port Arthur,
Texas; El Paso, Texas; and West Memphis, Arkansas) are monitoring
attainment tor both the eight-hour and one-hour ozone health-based
standards and  have been redesignated to attainment status.
http://www.epa.gov/region6/index.htm
                                                      1124

-------
Accomplishment,    EPA    Regions
        Reg/on 5 Funding the Great Likes Restoration Initiative
        In 2010, President Obama announced $475 million in new funding
        for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). the large.st invest-
        ment in the Great Lakes in two decades. The initiative targets some
        ot the most serious threats to the Great Lakes: invasive species, non-
        point source pollution, and contaminated sediment. EPA awarded
        more than 250 grants totaling approximately $150 million to states,
        municipalities, universities, and nonprofit organizations.
        http://www.greattakesrestoratinn.us/
        Region 4 Cleaning Up the Tennessee Valley Authority
        (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant
        When a dike used to contain fly ash at the plant failed in December
        2008, -5.4 million cubic yards of fly ash were released into a pond,
        three adjacent sloughs, and the main Emory' River channel. By
        September 2010, EPA and other state and federal agencies had
        already completed the necessary rime-cntical removal actions (well
        ahead of schedule) and seamlessly transitioned to non-time-critical
        activities. Over 3.5 million cubic yards of fly ash have already been
        removed from sensitive environments and actions are underway to
        permanently and safely close the failed dredge cell.
        http://www.epa.gov/region4/ki ngston/index .htm I
Region  / Mitigating Urban Stormwater Pollution
Region 1 broke new ground with first-time use of
"residual designation" authority under the Clean Water
Act to remedy severe water pollution problems in the
Charles  River watershed (metro Boston) and Long
Creek in Portland, Maine. Permits will require exten-
sive retrofitting of preen infrastructure techniques to
restore the natural water cycle. Ninety-eight percent of
regulated areas near Long Creek signed on to watershed
restoration utility, and retrofit construction is underway.
http://www.restorelongcreek.org/
                                                                                Region 2 Advancing New Jersey Site Cleanup
                                                                                With American Recovery and Reinvestment
                                                                                Act (ARRA) Funds
                                                                                Supported by $JO million in ARRA funding. Region
                                                                                2 accelerated the cleanup of contaminated soil and
                                                                                debris at the Cornell Dubilier Electronics site, a
                                                                                former electronic parts and capacitor manufacturing
                                                                                facility tn South Plainfield, New Jersey. The treat-
                                                                                ment and disposal of the soil, which is contaminated
                                                                                with semi-volatile organic compounds, metals, and
                                                                                polychlorinated biphenyls. will allow redevelopment
                                                                                to begin at the industrial park. Approximately 68 jobs
                                                                                have been created, and more than 41,000 tons of soil
                                                                                has already been treated, The project was included in
                                                                                the White House list of die 100 Recoit'rv Acf Presets
                                                                                Tfitit Arc C/umgmg America.
                                                                                http://www.epa.gov/region02/supertund/npl/comell/
Region 3 Implementing a Rigorous
"Pollution Diet" for the Chesapeake Bay
Region i is developing a rigorous pollution diet for
meeting water quality standards in the Chesapeake
Bay and its tidal tributaries through a Total Maximum
Daily Load {TMDL) to be issued in 2010. The nation's
largest TMDL will include strict limits on nitrogen,
phosphoric and sediment pollution and will be
informed by detailed implementation plan* drawn hy
the six watershed states and the District ot Columbia
to meet the assigned pollution reductions. The TMDL
and an associated accountability framework are serving
as a model for the nation for the assurance required by
the Clean Water Act that point and nonpoint source
controls con be achieved to  meet water quality goals.
http://www.epa.gov/ch esiipe.tktKivtindl
                                                                1125

-------
FY 2010 Overview of Performance Trends and Results
In FY 2010, with resource obligations of
$11.89 billion and 17,278 full-time-equivalent
employees, EPA achieved significant results
under each of the five long-term
environmental goals established in its 2006-
2011 Strategic Plan. This section provides an
overview of EPA's performance results.
                  EPA's FY 2010
            Long-Term Strategic Goals

      1.   Clean Air and Global Climate Change
      2.   Clean and Safe Water
      3.   Land Preservation and Restoration
      4.   Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
      5.   Compliance and Environmental
         Stewardship
                          EPA's FY 2010 Performance Results
                                   (Total Measures = 211)
                       I Met
                              DNot Met
D Data Available After February 7, 2011
Performance Measures Met

In its FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Budget, the Agency committed to 211 annual
performance measures. In FY 2010, the Agency met 118 of these performance measures, 78
percent of the performance measures for which data were available at the time this report was
published. EPA significantly exceeded its targets for several of its FY 2010 performance
measures. In some cases, a new collaborative effort or a new approach to the performance
measures allowed EPA to accomplish even more than it had planned.
                                         1126

-------
Performance Measures Not Met

In FY 2010, however, EPA also faced a number of difficult challenges and obstacles to success.
Despite the Agency's best efforts, 33 performance measures were not met. There are a number of
reasons for missed targets:

   •   An unexpected demand for resources, or competing priorities.

   •   Dependence on collaborative efforts with state, tribal, and local governments.

   •   Factors outside EPA's control, such as weather, technological challenges, or population
       growth and land use patterns.

   •   Delays in Agency processes, such as contracting and hiring.

EPA will carefully consider its FY 2010 results and adjust program strategies and approaches
accordingly. The next section of this report, "Performance Results," provides a more detailed
explanation of missed targets and discusses how the Agency plans to meet these performance
measures in the future.

Data Not Available

Because final end-of-year data for some measures were not available when this report went to
press, EPA is not yet able to report on 60 of its 211 performance measures. This delay in
reporting can be largely attributed to the Agency's focus on longer-term environmental and
human health outcomes, rather than on simpler, activity-based outputs. Environmental outcome
results may not become apparent within a Fiscal Year, and assessing environmental
improvements often requires multi-year information. Many variables are involved in evaluating
progress toward an outcome-oriented goal, and additional time is needed to understand  and
assess factors such as exposure and the resulting impact on human health.

In many cases, reporting cycles—including some that are legislatively mandated—do not
correspond with the federal FY on which this report is based. Data reported biennially, for
example, are not available for this report but will be provided in future reports.

Extensive quality assurance/quality control processes to ensure the reliability of performance
data can also delay reporting. EPA relies heavily on performance data obtained from state, tribal,
and local agencies, all of which require time to collect information and review it for quality.
Often, EPA is unable to obtain complete end-of-year information from all  sources in time for this
report.

Data Now Available

EPA is now able to report data from FY 2009 that became available in FY 2010. Final
performance results became available for 44 of the 60 datalags (out of a total of 205 FY 2009
performance measures). Of these 44 performance measures, EPA met 32.
                                          1127

-------
FY 2010 Highlights of Program Performance by Goal

This section highlights the Agency's major accomplishments under each of its strategic goals.
Detailed performance information is presented in the next section of this report.

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 GHG intensity by
enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.

    •  Improving Air Quality. Despite the national trend of improving air quality over the last
       few decades, some American communities have not attained air quality standards and
       continue to face health and environmental challenges from air pollution. During FY 2010,
       EPA continued to implement the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and other
       environmental laws to reduce and prevent harmful emissions from motor vehicles, fuels,
       power plants, and other large sources that contribute to outdoor air pollution. The Agency
       issued a final new health standard for sulfur dioxide (802) and strengthened the health-
       based standard for nitrogen dioxide (NC>2), which when fully attained, will improve
       public health. EPA finalized revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program,
       which will expand development and use of renewable fuels and reduce imports of
       petroleum. When fully implemented in 2022, the program is expected to reduce GHG
       emissions by 138 million metric tons. EPA and the DOT also proposed revisions to fuel
       economy labels on new cars and light duty trucks available for sale. The new, more
       comprehensive labels will include fuel economy ratings and information on GHG
       emissions and smog-forming air pollutants.

    •  Taking Action on Climate Change. During FY 2010, EPA continued to make historic
       progress in addressing climate change. In December 2009, the Administrator signed two
       distinct findings under Section 202(a) of the CAA regarding GHGs:  an Endangerment
       Finding that six key GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of current and future
       generations, and a Cause or Contribute Finding that the combined emissions of these
       GHGs from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to the GHG pollution which
       threatens public health and welfare.

Reducing GHGs. In April 2010, in response to the Administration's commitment to move
toward a clean energy, climate friendly economy, EPA and DOT jointly established new federal
rules that set the first-ever national GHG emissions standards and will significantly increase the
fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The rules will
conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil nationally, reduce nearly a billion metric tons of GHG
emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered, and potentially  save the average buyer of a 2016
model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle.

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.
                                          1128

-------
    •  Protecting America's Waters. EPA and its partners continued to make progress in
       protecting America's waters. The Agency's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
       (DWSRF) and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Programs received
       significant resources as part of the ARRA funds. CWSRF reported that 1,834 projects
       began construction; 235 were completed; and $1.13 billion (30 percent of the ARRA
       resources) funded "green" projects. The DWSRF reported that 1,338 projects began
       construction; 183 were completed; and $539 million (29 percent of the ARRA resources)
       funded "green" projects. For additional information, see:
       http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/eparecovery/index.cfm

    •  Improving Drinking Water. In FY 2010, EPA proposed revisions to the Total Coliform
       Rule, which requires public water systems to investigate and correct sanitary defects
       found when monitoring results indicate the system  may be vulnerable to contamination.
       The Agency initiated a national dialogue on a new Drinking Water Strategy to identify
       better ways to address contaminants in groups, improve drinking water technology, use
       multiple environmental statutes where appropriate, and foster a more collaborative
       dialogue with states on sharing information.

Goal 3 - Land Preservation and Restoration: Preserve and restore the land by using innovative
waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risk posed by
releases of harmful substances.

    •  Cleaning Up Our Communities. In FY 2010, EPA launched the Integrated Cleanup
       Initiative (ICI), a three-year strategy to identify and implement improvements to the
       Agency's land cleanup programs, as well as accelerate cleanups, address a greater
       number of contaminated sites, and put these sites back into productive use while
       protecting human health and the environment. The  ICI is examining opportunities for
       improvements across all of EPA's land cleanup programs, including the Superfund,
       Brownfields, Federal Facilities, Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA), and
       Underground Storage Tanks Programs.

    •  Preventing Coal Ash Releases. The failure of an ash disposal cell at the Tennessee
       Valley Authority's (TVA's) Kingston plant in December 2008 highlighted the issue of
       coal combustion residuals (CCR) impoundment stability. In response,  EPA has been
       assessing the stability of impoundments and similar management units that contain wet-
       handled CCRs. EPA is continuing to conduct assessments and posting final reports on the
       structural integrity of impoundments, including recommendations to ensure continued
       stability. EPA is following up with facilities to ensure that the recommendations are
       implemented. In FY 2010, the Agency also co-proposed two alternative regulations
       governing the disposal of CCRs, and conducted extensive public outreach on these
       proposals.

Goal 4 - Healthy Communities and Ecosystems: Protect,  sustain, or restore  the health of
people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and
partnerships.
                                          1129

-------
•  Assuring the Safety of Chemicals. During FY 2010, EPA substantially accelerated its
   pace in assessing the dangers posed by the most ubiquitous chemicals. The Agency
   completed hazard characterizations for 270 high production volume (HPV) chemicals
   (chemicals produced/imported in amounts greater than  1 million pound [Ib] annually), a
   65 percent increase from FY 2009; neared issuing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
   test rule for 19 HPVs; and proposed significant expansions and improvements in the
   TSCA Inventory Update Reporting requirements to obtain the data needed to assess
   chemical safety. EPA implemented the Lead-based Paint Renovation, Repair, and
   Painting (RRP) Rule, effective April 2010, which requires renovation contractors to be
   trained and certified in the use of lead-safe work practices when renovating housing and
   child-occupied facilities built prior to 1978. EPA revised confidential business
   information (CBI) policies for reviewing chemical identity claims in health and safety
   studies, thereby allowing the public unprecedented access to important chemical safety
   information. Also in FY 2010, EPA for the first time provided free online public access
   to the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory, for approximately 84,000 chemicals in
   commerce.

•  Great Lakes. EPA continued its comprehensive watershed protection programs for the
   Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action
   Plan, released in February 2010, is driving progress, with goals, objectives, and targets in
   five focus areas linked to planning and budget targets. At the close of FY 2010, more
   than $150 million was obligated in over 250 grants and more than $240 million in 13
   principal interagency agreements. Funding was principally directed to on-the-ground
   Great Lakes restoration projects in the GLRI focus areas.

•  Chesapeake Bay. In May 2010, EPA and its Chesapeake Bay partner agencies released
   the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and  in
   September 2010, an action plan for implementation. The strategy includes using rigorous
   regulations to restore clean water, implementing new conservation practices  on 4 million
   acres of farms, conserving 2 million acres of undeveloped land, and rebuilding oyster
   beds in 20 tributaries of the bay. To increase accountability, federal agencies will
   establish milestones every two years to measure actions taken to achieve longer-term
   environmental goals. To restore clean water, EPA will implement the Chesapeake TMDL
   (a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay and local waterways), expand regulation of
   urban and suburban  stormwater and concentrated animal feeding  operations, and increase
   enforcement activities and funding for state regulatory programs.

•  Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental
   Justice. EPA significantly advanced its outreach and protection efforts for communities
   historically underrepresented in the Agency's decision-making. In July 2010, EPA
   released for public comment its draft Plan EJ 2014, a -year roadmap to help the Agency
   develop stronger community relationships and improve environmental and health
   conditions in overburdened communities. EPA also issued interim guidance  to  give
   environmental justice communities a voice in shaping environmental rules and
   regulations. The guidance outlines steps the Agency can take to incorporate the needs of
   communities overburdened by pollution into its decision-making, scientific analysis, and
                                      1130

-------
       rule development. EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality
       reconvened the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, comprising five
       cabinet agencies dedicated to ensuring that all Americans have strong federal protection
       from environmental and health hazards, and marking the Agency's recommitment to
       advancing EO 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
       Populations and Low-Income Populations."

Goal 5 - Compliance and Environmental Stewardship: Improve environmental performance
through compliance with environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting
environmental stewardship. Protect human health and the environment by encouraging
innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote
environmental stewardship.

In FY 2010, EPA has three key enforcement goals to guide its work and make a real difference
in protection of human health and the environment in communities across the nation.

    D   Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities by
       using vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water,
       air, and chemical hazards and advances environmental justice by protecting
       vulnerable communities.

       o  Clean water: through the Clean Water Action Plan, revamp enforcement and
          permitting to focus on the biggest pollution problems including getting raw sewage
          out of the water, cutting pollution from animal waste, and reducing polluted storm
          water runoff. This goal also includes assuring clean drinking water for all
          communities, including in Indian country, and cleaning up great waters that matter to
          communities such as the Chesapeake Bay.

       o  Clean air: cut toxic air pollution in communities and reduce air pollution from largest
          sources, including coal-fired power plants, cement, acid and glass sectors.

       o  Climate and clean energy: assure compliance with GHG reporting rule, encourage
          GHG emission reductions through settlements, and target energy sector compliance
          with air, water, and waste rules.

       o  Protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals: prevent releases of hazardous
          chemicals that threaten public health or the environment, press for cleanup of
          hazardous sites in communities reinforcing the polluter pays principal, and reform
          chemical management enforcement and reduce exposure to pesticides.

    D   Reset our relationship with states to make sure we are delivering on our joint
       commitment to a clean and healthy environment. EPA shares accountability for
       environmental and human health protection with states and tribes. EPA and states work
       together to target the most important pollution violations and ensure that companies that
       do the right thing, are responsible neighbors, and are not put at a competitive
       disadvantage.
                                         1131

-------
    D  Improve transparency. Increased transparency is an effective tool for improving
       compliance. By making information on violations both available and understandable,
       EPA empowers citizens to demand better compliance.

                     Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

In FY 2010, the United States experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in its history,
the  April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA immediately began
monitoring the area to determine potential public health and environmental concerns—primarily air
quality concerns from the spill and controlled burn emissions, waste management plans, and water
quality for dispersant level monitoring—and preparing for the immediate and long-term
environmental fallout from the spill.

As one of many agencies supporting the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)-led federal response, EPA vice-
chaired the National Response Team, which provided round the clock coordination among the
involved federal agencies. Among its efforts, EPA:

•   Collected and evaluated samples along the shoreline and beyond for chemicals related to oil and
    dispersants in the air, water, sediment, and waste. EPA's monitoring and sampling activities
    provided the USCG, other federal agencies, states, and local governments with data to inform
    decisions about seafood safety, habitat impacts,  and beach closure issues.

•   Supported and advised USCG efforts to clean the reclaimed oil and waste from the shoreline.

•   Worked with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to design a
    monitoring strategy for subsea dispersant use, evaluated the toxicity of dispersants, and
    provided oversight on the use of dispersants.

EPA mobilized its Headquarters and Regional Emergency Operations Center and established a
communications network to provide timely information to the public. The Agency's
www. epa. gov/BPspill site includes air, water, and sediment quality monitoring updates, Q&As on
pertinent issues, and links to additional response sites. EPA also used social media, such as
Facebook and Twitter, to provide a continuous flow of information from major announcements to
notices of local developments and meetings.

In September 2010, the Administration outlined an aggressive Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration
plan, which led to the establishment of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to be
chaired by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.  The task force, an intergovernmental advisory body,
is charged with coordinating restoration programs and projects in the Gulf region. It will focus on
efforts to create more resilient and healthy Gulf Coast ecosystems, while also encouraging support
for  economic recovery and long-term health issues.  As part of the restoration, EPA will work with
federal, state, and local partners and stakeholders to develop and implement science-based
restoration efforts.
                                          1132

-------
How the Report Is Organized

This report is organized by the five strategic goals established in the Agency's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan. Each goal section discusses progress toward achieving the Agency's strategic
objectives and includes a table of detailed performance results for each of the Agency's FY 2010
performance measures.

Explanations are included  for missed or significantly exceeded targets or missing data. Measures
that are also being used to  assess the ARRA are identified by an asterisk. For a full set of ARRA
measures, please visit: http://epa.gov/recovery/plans.html.

This report addresses all of the elements of an APR specified under the GPRA and as specified
in OMB Circular No. A-ll, "Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget.1"
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars all current year all toe/
                                           1133

-------
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
                   1134

-------
          GOAL  1  AT A GLANCE: CLEAN  AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
                                    FY 2010 Performance Measures

                 Met = 0 Not Met = 1 Data Available After 2/7/11 = 27 (Total Measures = 28)
        How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                   (Dollars in Thousands)
        Healthy
     Communities
     and Ecosystems
      $1.952.626,3
          16.4%
Compliance and
 Environmental
  Stewardship
       Source: FY 2010 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
  $814.298.8 aean AJ,- and G|oba|
              Climate Change
               $1.205,805.4     2
                  10.1%
                                           Goal I Performance Measures
                                                    (FY20IO)
                                                         Objective 1  Objective 2  Objective 3  Objective 4  Objective 5  Objective 6


                                                                    Goal I Performance Measures
                                                                             (FY 2009)
                                                         Objective I  Objective 2  Objective 3  Objective4  Objectives  Objective6
                                 Goal 1 FY 2010 Performance and Resources
                                Strategic Objective
                                                            FY 2010
                                                           Obligations
                                                          (in thousands)
 %of
Goal 1
Funds
  Objective 1—Healthier Outdoor Air: Protect human health and the environment by
  attaining and maintaining health-based air-quality standards and reducing the risk from
  toxic air pollutants.
                                                           $800,883.7
 66%
  Objective 2—Healthier Indoor Air: Healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office
  buildings.
                                                            $46,006.6
 4%
  Objective 3—Protect the Ozone Layer: Through worldwide action, ozone concentra-
  tions in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of
  recovery,  and the risk to human health from overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation,
  particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
                                                            $20,276.6
 2%
  Objective 4—Radiation: Working with partners, minimize unnecessary releases of
  radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human health and the environment
  should unwanted releases occur.
                                                            $49,761.6
 4%
  Objective 5—Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Through EPA's voluntary climate
  protection programs, contribute 45 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE)
  annually to the President's 18 percent greenhouse gas intensity improvement goal by
  2012.
                                                           $183,710.1
 15%
  Objective 6 - 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.
                                                           $105,166.8
 9%
  Goal 1 Total
                                                          $1,205,805.4
100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                                      1135

-------
Goal Purpose

Air pollution affects everyone. The average adult breathes more than 3,000 gallons of air every
day, and children breathe even more air per pound of body weight. Air pollutants, such as those
that form urban smog, can remain in the environment for long periods of time and be carried by
the wind hundreds of miles from their origin. Millions of people live in areas where urban smog,
very small particles, and toxic pollutants pose serious health concerns. Long-term exposure to
elevated levels of certain air pollutants can damage the immune, neurological, reproductive, and
respiratory systems and cause cancer and premature death.

EPA implements the CAA Amendments of 1990 and other environmental laws and uses that take
innovative approaches, such as emission trading, to reduce and prevent harmful emissions from
power plants and other large sources, motor vehicles, and fuels that contribute to outdoor air
pollution. The CAA Amendments authorize EPA to set limits on how much of a pollutant can be
in the air anywhere in the United  States, ensuring the same basic level of health and
environmental protections for all Americans. Although the law allows individual states to
establish stronger pollution controls, no state is allowed to have weaker pollution controls than
those set for the country as a whole.  States take the lead in carrying out the CAA because
pollution control problems often require a specialized understanding of such factors as local
industries, geography, and transportation patterns. Through EPA, the U.S. government supports
state clean air programs by providing scientific research, expert studies, engineering designs, and
funding. In its 2008 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations, the
government  looked back at 10 years  of major rules and found that EPA air rules result in more
benefits than costs.

Because most people spend much of their lives indoors, the quality of indoor air is another major
area of concern for EPA. Sources of indoor air pollution include radon; combustion products
from oil, gas, kerosene, coal, and wood; tobacco products; household cleaning products; building
materials and furnishings, such as asbestos-containing insulation; damp carpets; lead-based
paints;  and other chemical and biological contaminants. Often, the people exposed to indoor air
pollutants for the longest periods  of time are also those most susceptible to the ill effects of
indoor air pollution: the young, the elderly, and the chronically ill, especially those suffering
from respiratory diseases such as  asthma or cardiovascular disease. EPA provides web-based
resources, publications, and outreach and partners with state and tribal organizations, county and
local environmental and public health officials, housing and building organizations, school
personnel who manage school environments, and health care providers, particularly in urban
areas. These resources and partnerships serve to inform and educate the public about indoor air
quality concerns and promote public action to improve the quality of air in homes, schools, and
workplaces.

EPA also works to address global climate change. Since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, emissions of several GHGs (including carbon dioxide [CC>2], methane, and  nitrous
oxides)  have increased substantially, contributing to climate change. While important questions
remain about how much change will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the changes  will
affect the rest of the climate system,  EPA is taking action to reduce GHG emissions. In  support
of the President's climate change goals, EPA is working to further understanding of the science
                                          1136

-------
of climate change and develop new policies to reduce emissions. For example, EPA has
collaborated with DOT to develop the first ever GHG standards for cars and light duty trucks for
model years 2012-2016, as well as investigate regulatory options to reduce emissions from
stationary sources. Also, EPA is developing a GHG Reporting System. This comprehensive,
nationwide emissions data will help provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming
from and will guide the development of sound policies and programs to reduce emissions.

In addition, under EPA's stratospheric ozone  layer protection program, the Agency coordinates
numerous regulatory programs designed to protect and restore the ozone layer. EPA also
continues to participate actively in developing international stratospheric ozone protection
policies.

Finally, EPA works to protect the public and the environment from harmful and avoidable
exposure to radiation. EPA issues guidance and develops standards for radioactive emissions,
prepares for and responds to accidents and incidents involving nuclear or radiological material,
develops guidance for cleaning up radioactively contaminated sites, and manages a national
environmental radiation monitoring system.

Contributing Programs

Acid Rain Program, AirNow, Air Toxics,  Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, Clean Air
Research, Indoor Air Quality, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Development
and Implementation, Mobile Sources, New Source Review, Regional Haze, Stratospheric Ozone
Layer Protection Program, Radiation Programs, and Voluntary Climate Programs.

EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended
outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal
1, please see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/financialperformancereports.htm, which
summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
                                          1137

-------
Objective 1.1: Healthier Outdoor Air
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 1.1
                        (in thousands)
                    Objective 6
            Objective 5
           Objective 4
           Objective 3
            Objective 2
                  Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,205.805.4
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.1

       Met = 0
     Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
  February?, 2011=15
     (Total = 15)
The CAA directs EPA to identify and set NAAQS for commonly found air pollutants that
adversely affect public health and the environment. EPA has set national air quality standards for
six common air pollutants—ground-level ozone (smog), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, (NO2),
SO2, and paniculate matter (PM) (measured as PM 2.5 and PM 10). For each of these six
pollutants, EPA has set health-based, or "primary," standards to protect public health as well as
environment-based, or "secondary," standards to protect the public welfare (e.g., crops,
vegetation, wildlife, buildings and monuments, and visibility). The CAA requires EPA to review
the health- and environment-based  standards at least once every five years and revise them as
necessary to continue to protect public health and the environment. To reduce or eliminate the
unacceptable health risks and cumulative exposures to air toxics from multiple sources in
affected communities and to fulfill  its statutory and court-ordered obligations, EPA will continue
to pursue opportunities to meet multiple CAA requirements for stationary sources in more
integrated ways.

National Air Quality Standards for SOi and NOi

In June 2010, EPA issued a new standard for SO2 and in January 2010 strengthened the health-
based standard of NO2, which will improve public health protection from power plants, industrial
facilities, and vehicles. This is the first new standard for SO2in almost 40 years, and it will
protect millions of Americans from high short-term (five minutes to 24 hours) exposure to SO2.
EPA estimates that meeting the SO2 standard may help avoid 2,300 to 5,900 premature deaths
and 54,000 asthma attacks per year, due to  lower PM emissions. This rule also sets new
monitoring requirements to ensure that monitors will be placed where SO2 emissions affect
populated areas. The first new NO2 standard in 35 years establishes new monitoring requirements
in urban  areas that will measure NO2 levels around major roads and across the community.
                                           1138

-------
Working with states, EPA will site at least 40 additional monitors in locations to help protect
communities that are susceptible and vulnerable to elevated levels of NC>2.

Proposed Revisions to the National Ground-level Ozone Standards

In January 2010, EPA proposed air quality standards for ground-level ozone that encompass the
range recommended by the Agency's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. The Agency
proposed to set the "primary" standard, which protects public health, at a level between 0.060
and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over eight hours. EPA also proposed to set a
separate seasonal cumulative standard to protect plants and trees from damage occurring from
repeated ozone exposure. Depending on the level selected, fully attaining the proposed primary
standards could lead to between 1,500 and 12,000 annual avoided premature deaths and between
23,000 and 58,000 annual avoided asthma attacks.

Mercury Reductions From Cement Plants

Cement manufacturing is the third largest source of mercury air emissions in the United States.
For context, this sector emits about 8 percent of the anthropogenic emissions in the United
States, while the United States, emits roughly 3 percent of the global total mercury emissions.
Mercury in the air eventually deposits into water, where it changes into methylmercury, a highly
toxic form that builds up in fish. Mercury is especially harmful to young children. The  new limits
for cement plants will achieve annual reductions of mercury by 8 tons, a 92 percent reduction
from projected 2013 levels, along with reductions in other toxic air pollutants  and PM.  EPA
expects the rules to yield $7 to $19 in public health benefits for every dollar spent. Reductions in
particle pollution from this rule are estimated  to avoid 960 to  2,500 premature deaths, 17,000
cases  of aggravated asthma, 1,500 heart attacks, and 1,000 visits to the emergency room for
respiratory problems.

Proposed Rule for Boilers and Solid Waste Incinerators to Reduce Air Toxics

During FY 2010, EPA proposed two actions to reduce harmful air pollution from boilers, process
heaters, and solid waste incinerators in communities across the United States.  The Agency is
committed to develop rules that are protective, cost-effective, and based on sound science.
Combined, these actions propose cutting annual air toxics emissions from about 200,000
industrial boilers, process heaters, and solid waste incinerators, as well as slashing mercury
emissions from these units by more than 50 percent. Industrial boilers and process heaters are the
second largest source of mercury emissions in the United States. EPA estimates that the
proposed rules would yield more than $5 in public health benefits for every dollar spent. These
rules could result in avoiding between 2,000 and 5,200 premature deaths and about 36,000
asthma attacks a year.

Proposal to Cut Pollution From Power Plants

Signed on July 6, the proposed "Transport Rule" would help 31 states and the District of
Columbia meet air quality standards for fine particles and ground-level ozone and reduce the
harmful environmental effects of SC>2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) including acid rain, nitrogen
                                          1139

-------
deposition, and poor visibility in major national parks. EPA projects that in 2014, the rule will
prevent 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, and 240,000 cases of
aggravated asthma, due to lower PM emissions. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA clean
air actions would reduce power plant 862 emissions by 71 percent and NOx emissions would
drop by 52 percent.

Great American Woods Stove Changeout

As part of EPA's Wood Smoke Initiative, about 17 areas throughout the country have
implemented wood stove changeouts and/or fireplace retrofit programs, resulting in replacement
or retrofit of more than 4,500 wood stoves and fireplaces. These programs have reduced fine
particle emissions by 54 tons and toxic air emissions by 10 tons, producing an estimated $19
million to $47 million in annual health benefits.

Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

By April 28, 2010, EPA responders were on the ground monitoring the air quality in the Gulf
region. Responders used portable, fixed, mobile, and aerial monitoring to collect thousands of air
samples from along the Gulf Coast to test for pollutants associated with crude oil. EPA focused
its monitoring on pollutants that are harmful if inhaled, specifically particle pollution, ground-
level ozone, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons, and
hydrogen sulfide. EPA is continuing to monitor the air along  the Gulf Coast using established
national monitoring networks and community scale programs. To date, all air monitoring and
sampling results  have been significantly below levels that would be expected to cause any long-
term health effects.

Marine Diesel Emissions

In early FY 2010, EPA finalized a rule setting tough engine and fuel standards for large U.S.-
flagged ships, a major milestone in the Agency's coordinated strategy to slash harmful marine
diesel emissions. The regulation aligns with international standards and will lead to significant
air quality improvements throughout the country. By 2030, the domestic and international
strategy, which includes designating an Emissions Control Area (EGA) and emissions limits for
all U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels within 200 nautical miles of all U.S. shores, is expected to
reduce annual NOx emissions from large marine diesel engines by about 1.2 million tons and PM
emissions by about 143,000 tons. When fully implemented, this coordinated effort will reduce
NOx emissions from  ships by 80 percent, and PM emissions by 85 percent, compared with
current emissions.

The emission reductions from the coordinated strategy will yield significant health and welfare
benefits that reach beyond U.S. ports and coasts to inland areas, according to EPA's air quality
modeling. Full benefits will be realized when the U.S. EGA is in place and both U.S. and foreign
vessels are required to use low sulfur fuel and operate their Tier 3 NOX controls while in the
designated areas. EPA estimates that by 2030, the combined rule and international strategy will
have prevented between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths and  1.4 million work days lost. The
estimated annual health benefits in 2030 as a result of reduced air pollution are valued between
                                          1140

-------
$110 billion and $270 billion, which is up to nearly 90 times the projected cost of $3.1 billion to
achieve those results. This rule, under the CAA, complements a key piece of EPA's strategy to
designate an emission control area for thousands of miles of U.S. and Canadian coasts.

Renewable Fuels Standard

In February 2010, EPA finalized revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard program
(commonly known as the renewable fuel standard [RFS] program) as required by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. The revised statutory requirements establish new
specific annual volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel,
and total renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel. This final action lays the
foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions from the use of renewable
fuels, reductions of imported petroleum, and further development and expansion of the nation's
renewable fuels sector. The expanded use of renewable fuels is expected to reduce GHG
emissions by 138 million metric tons when the program is fully implemented in 2022. The
reductions would be equivalent to the average annual emissions of 27 million vehicles.

Fuel Economy Label

In August 2010, EPA and DOT jointly proposed revisions to fuel economy labels for display on
new cars and light duty trucks available for purchase. Revised labels facilitate straightforward
environmental comparisons across vehicle lines and better inform consumer decisions. The new
labels will enable evaluations of energy and environmental performance between electric
vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and conventional gasoline-powered vehicles and will
be more comprehensive than current labels,  including fuel economy ratings, GHG emissions, and
information on smog-forming air pollutants, as required by the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. A new web-based interactive tool is also incorporated into revised labels,
which can also be accessed by smart phone. This tool would allow consumers to personalize
information about a vehicle's performance.

Decreasing Diesel Emissions

Authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Program is a
multifaceted grant program aimed at lowering diesel  emissions from the 11 million diesel
engines currently existing in the United States. In FY 2010, Congress provided $60 million, in
addition to the $60 million provided in FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act and $300 million
provided in the ARRA, for national and state programs to support a variety of cost-effective
technologies that can dramatically reduce harmful emissions, save fuel, and help the nation meet
its clean air and sustainability goals. These clean diesel projects reduce criteria pollutants, air
toxics,  and pollution by many thousands of tons.

Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Reduction of Air Emissions

For almost four  decades, EPA and state programs have successfully reduced air emissions of
harmful pollutants during a period of economic growth. This chart shows that even though
economic growth indicators such as gross domestic product, vehicle  miles traveled  (VMT),
                                          1141

-------
energy consumption, and population have been increasing, pollutant emissions have been
steadily decreasing. Environmental protection and economic growth can simultaneously take
place.
                      Air Emissions Decrease While Economy Grows
140%

120%

100% -i

 80%


 60% -

 40%

 20%
  0%
 -20%

 -40%
 -60%
28%
 122%



 95%"





 35%
kL
 22%
                                          -57%
    80  90 9G  86 97  98 99 00 01  02 03 04 06 06 07 08  09
                                           1142

-------
Objective 1.2: Healthier Indoor Air
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 1.2
                          (in thousands)
                   Objective 6
          Objective 5
         Objective 4
         Objective 3
     Objective 2
     $46,006.60
        4%
                     Goal 1 Total Obligations =
                          $1,205,805.4
FY 2010 Performance
 Measures: Objective
         1.2

       Met = 0
     Not Met = 0
 Data Available After
 February?, 2011 = 5
      (Total = 5)
EPA employs two key strategies to improve the nation's indoor air:  1) increasing public
awareness of indoor air risks so that individuals can take steps to reduce their exposure and 2)
relying on partnerships with a variety of organizations to spur action. EPA conducts outreach
activities to provide the public, as well as the professional and research communities (e.g., the
American Medical Association and the American Society  of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers) with essential information about  indoor air risks. In partnership with
nongovernmental and professional entities, the Agency develops and disseminates multimedia
materials to improve the design,  operation, and maintenance of all types of buildings—including
schools, homes, and workplaces—and bring about healthier indoor environments.

Indoor Air Quality Specifications and Buildings Initiatives (ISBI)

EPA has collaborated with public- and private-sector organizations to integrate protocols and
specifications that promote good indoor air quality across  a range of building types. In FY 2010,
more than 500 partners joined the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air's healthy homes program
for builders, the Indoor airPLUS (LAP) program. As a result, more than 600 new homes earned
the IAP label and many more were built based on the IAP specifications. Additionally, EPA has
created highly anticipated residential specifications for weatherization and home retrofits with
measures that not only sustain energy efficiency, but also ensure healthy indoor environments.

Increasing Indoor Air Quality  Plans in Schools

EPA's Indoor Air Quality Tools  for Schools effort provides individual schools, school districts,
educational organizations, and educators with information on best practices, industry guidelines
and sample policies, and management plans for improving indoor air quality. EPA's Indoor Air
Quality  Tools for Schools Awards Program recognizes school districts and others in the schools
                                          1143

-------
community that has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving children's health by
promoting good indoor air quality. More than 3,000 additional schools are estimated to have put
Indoor Air Quality Management Plans in place in the past year, bringing the total number of U.S.
schools that have developed management plans to more than 60,000. According to national
surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), nearly two-thirds of those schools
are carrying out critical indoor environmental risk reduction actions consistent with EPA Indoor
Air Quality Tools for Schools guidance.

Growth in the Communities in Action Campaign

Asthma is a respiratory disease affecting more than 22 million Americans, including 6.8 million
children. It can be serious or even life-threatening. Over the past 30 years, rates of asthma rose
sharply, particularly among children ages 5 to 14. Disparities in low-income and minority
populations continue to grow. Although there is no cure, asthma can be controlled by managing
environmental asthma triggers and providing medical treatment. EPA continues to promote
community adoption of comprehensive asthma care programs. EPA's growing Communities in
Action Campaign in FY 2010 engaged more than 1,200 community-based asthma programs
across the nation. This community-level action, together with EPA's leadership to advance the
control of indoor environmental triggers as part of comprehensive asthma care, results in an
estimated 75,000 emergency room visits averted annually for people with asthma. EPA's goal is
to reduce exposure to asthma triggers for 6.5 million people by 2012. To this end, EPA provides
educational material about the indoor and outdoor environmental factors that trigger asthma and
transfers best practices through the Communities in Action Campaign.

Radon Leaders Saving Lives Campaign

Radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer in America and contributes to
approximately 20,000  deaths from lung cancer each year.3 It is the number one cause of lung
cancer among nonsmokers. EPA estimates that 1 in 15 homes has  a radon level of 4 picocuries
per liter (pCi/L) of air  or more in the living area of the home; this level is at or above EPA's
recommended levels.4  However, reducing exposure is simple and based on proven control
techniques. Through its national radon program and Radon Leaders Saving Lives campaign,
EPA works with the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists, the
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, state and local governments, nonprofit
organizations, and radon professionals across the country to reduce the radon risk in existing and
new homes by providing information on radon risk and mitigation. Radon-reducing actions have
prevented an estimated 6,000 premature deaths from lung cancer in the last 20 years. The
campaign's goal is to double that number over the next five years.
 See the CDC and Prevention Asthma website at: www. cdc. gov/asthma/.
3 See EPA's Radon Health Risks webpage at: www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html. Also see: EPA Assessment of Risks from
Radon in Homes, EPA-402-R-03-003 (June 2003).
4 EPA's Technical Support Document for the Citizen's Guide toRadon, EPA 400-R-92-01 (May 1992).

                                          1144

-------
Objective 1.3: Protect the Ozone Layer
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 1.3
                        (in thousands)
                      Objective 6
             Objective 5
   Objective 3
   $20.276.60 Objective 2
      2%
                  Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,205,805.4
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.3
       Met = 0
     Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
  February?, 2011 = 1
      (Total = 1)
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth from harmful UV radiation. Scientific
evidence amassed over the past 30 years has shown that ozone-depleting substances used around
the world damage the stratospheric ozone layer and contribute to climate change. Overexposure
to increased levels of UV radiation due to ozone layer depletion is expected to raise the incidence
of skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses, as well as damage aquatic ecosystems and
agricultural crops. EPA works with many stakeholders in a wide variety of voluntary programs
and partnerships that promote practices to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances and
GHGs.

New Ozone Layer Protection Rules

EPA implemented two rules that control hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). The first phases
down consumption, while the second restricts import of appliances, such as air conditioners,
which are "pre-charged" with HCFCs. Together, the rules provide a comprehensive framework
to maintain U.S. compliance with the Montreal Protocol while realizing dramatic gains for the
ozone layer and climate system.  By surpassing the 2010 caps required under the Montreal
Protocol, the rules provide an additional 9,507 ozone depleting potential (ODP)-weighted tons of
ozone layer benefit and an additional 314 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2E) of climate benefit  from 2010 to 2014, equal to avoiding annual GHG emissions
from 60 million cars. For additional information, see:
www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/rulesoverview.html.

SunWise Program Reaches 25,000 Schools

The SunWise Program was created to help Americans adapt to the adverse health risks from
ozone layer depletion, specifically overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation.  More than 30,000
teachers at 25,000 schools (about 24 percent of all U.S. K-8 schools) and 5,000 informal
                                          1145

-------
educators at 3,700 partner institutions (childrens museums, camps, and communities) have joined
the Sun Wise Program and rely on Sun Wise information. This brings the total estimated number
of students familiar with the Sun Wise program to more than 3 million over the life of the
program. SunWise launched new online sun safety training for outdoor educators, and more than
2,000 staff took the training. It has been so successful that some camps now require it as part of
their safety training. In 2009 alone, the estimated benefits of the program were 5.75 times greater
than the SunWise Program's cost, according to a peer-reviewed effectiveness model published in
Pediatrics. For additional information,  see: www.epa.gov/sunwise.

UV Index Application Launched for  Smartphones

EPA launched an application for smartphones that provides users a daily UV index forecast
tailored to their location. The application gives Americans a new way to check the sun's intensity
and easier access to medically sound advice about how to plan for sun-safe activities. Scientists
agree that the ozone layer will not heal  until about 2065. In the meantime, Americans will be
exposed to more UV radiation than in the past, at a time when more Americans were diagnosed
with skin cancer in 2009 than with breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer combined. The new
application provides directly relevant information to help Americans to stay safe in the sun. The
UV index application can be downloaded at: www.epa.gov/enviro/mobile/.

GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership Reaches 50 Partners

GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration Partnership is an EPA partnership with food retailers to
reduce refrigerant emissions and decrease their impact on the ozone layer  and climate change.
GreenChill helps food retailers transition to refrigerants with better overall environmental
profiles; reduce refrigerant charge sizes and leaks; and adopt advanced refrigeration
technologies, strategies, and practices. During the first year of membership, GreenChill partners
on average reduce their corporate refrigerant emissions by almost 10 percent. The founding
partners reported emission  reductions in 2008 and 2009 combined were the equivalent of 5
metric tons of ozone-depleting potential and 400,000 million metric tons of MMTCC^E.
GreenChill has signed 50 partners representing 5,500 stores in 48 states in less than three years,
marking a substantial win for the environment. For additional information, see:
www. epa. gov/green chill/.

Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program List Expands

In FY 2010, EPA's SNAP program expanded the menu of environmentally superior alternatives
to ozone-depleting substances. SNAP issued a list of substitutes for chlorodifluoromethane
(HCFC-22), as well as two proposed rules for key end uses. EPA proposed as acceptable a new
alternative for new motor vehicle air conditioners that can help carmakers meet requirements of
the EPA-National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Rule. Additionally, EPA proposed new acceptable uses for hydrocarbons in some
consumer and industrial applications. For additional  information, see: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.
                                          1146

-------
Proposed Montreal Protocol for Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Controls

On April 29, 2010, the United States, Mexico, and Canada submitted a proposed amendment to
phase down HFC consumption under the Montreal Protocol. HFCs are substitutes for ozone-
depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol and CAA. The amendment
creates an HFC phase down schedule for developing and developed countries and addresses
HFC-23 byproduct emissions from HCFC production. The amendment's cumulative global
benefits include a reduction of 3,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2) by 2020 and a reduction of 88,000 MMTCO2E by 2050, according to EPA
estimates. An estimated additional reduction of 6,000 MMTCC^E will accrue through HFC-23
controls.

West Virginia Joins Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD)

In 2010, West Virginia became EPA's first state affiliate partner in the RAD program. RAD
partners include utilities, retailers, and now state affiliates; partners recover ozone-depleting
substances from old refrigerators, freezers, window air conditioners, and dehumidifiers. In
addition to saving  energy and landfill space by recycling durable materials, RAD partners
prevented emissions of 380,000 Ib of ozone-depleting substances and 1.41 MMTCEby
recovering foam and refrigerants from appliances, a reduction equivalent to avoiding annual
emissions from more than 260,000 cars. For additional information, see:
www. epa. gov/ozone/partnerships/rad/index.html.
                                         1147

-------
Objective 1.4: Radiation
               FY2010 Obligations: Objective 1.4
                        (in thousands)
                       Objective 6
             Objective 5
  Objective 4
  $49.761.60.
     4%
           Objective 3
            Objective 2
                    Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1,205,805.4
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.4

       Met = 0
     Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
  February 7, 2011 =3
      (Total = 3)
Congress designated EPA as the primary federal agency charged with protecting human health
and the environment from harmful and avoidable exposure to radiation. EPA's Radiation
Protection Program carries out this responsibility through its federal guidance and standards
development activities. The program also manages a nationwide environmental radiation
monitoring system, RadNet, and actively prepares for and responds to accidents and incidents
involving nuclear or radiological material when they occur. It also oversees the safe disposal of
radioactive waste and develops guidance and generally applicable radiation standards for all
federal agencies for protecting human health and the environment from radioactive material. The
Agency's radiation science is recognized nationally and internationally; it is the foundation that
EPA, other federal agencies, and states use to develop radiation risk management policy,
guidance, and rulemakings.

Collaboration with Other Agencies

EPA supports safe and environmentally sound radioactive waste management by maintaining
certification and oversight responsibilities for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) waste disposal
activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). EPA's waste characterization program
inspects DOE radioactive waste generator sites and supports the department's goals for disposal
of defense-related transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP. Since WIPP opened in 1999, DOE has
made approximately 7,800 waste shipments of transuranic waste. WIPP recertification is
mandated by the Land Withdrawal Act, which requires DOE to submit documentation of
continued compliance with EPA requirements every five years. DOE submitted its second
Compliance Recertification Application in 2009, and during FY 2010, EPA completed its
technical review of DOE's application and issued its completeness determination decision. The
Agency expects to issue its WIPP recertification decision in the first quarter of FY 2011.
                                           1148

-------
EPA's Radiation Protection Program continues to coordinate with other federal agencies and
states to develop mechanisms for controlling industrial materials with radioactive components.
For example, EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission co-chair the Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS), made up of eight federal agencies, three federal
observer agencies, and two state observer agencies. ISCORS facilitates consensus on acceptable
levels of radiation risk to the public and workers and promotes consistent risk approaches in
setting and implementing standards for protection from exposure to ionizing radiation. EPA also
works closely with other national and international organizations,  such as the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the International
Atomic Energy Agency, the International Commission on Radiation Protection, and the
Organization of Economic and Cooperative Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, to advance
scientific understanding of radiation risks.

Radiological Emergency Response Training

EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Program generates policy, guidance, and procedures
that the Agency uses during radiological emergency response under the National Response
Framework and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. EPA
maintains its own Radiological Emergency Response Team, is a member of the Federal
Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, and also supports the Federal Advisory
Team for Environment, Food, and Health (the "A-Team").

EPA responds to radiological emergencies, conducts national and  regional radiological response
planning and training, and develops response plans for radiological incidents or accidents. In
addition, EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Program continues to participate in planning
and implementing international and national table-top and field exercises, including radiological
anti-terrorism activities with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, DOE, Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). EPA also continues 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 developing their own
preparedness programs. Through personnel  and asset training and  exercises, EPA continues to
enhance and maintain its state-of-readiness for radiological emergencies.

Improving State Radiological Lab Capacity

Although accidental release of radioactive materials is rare, EPA is ready to respond to protect
public health and the environment and works with state and local officials to enhance their
response capabilities. In FY 2010, EPA continued to improve state radiological laboratory
capacity by providing more reliable, interpretable, and timely data resulting in more efficient
national and local response and recovery activities. The Agency provided additional laboratory
instruments, laboratory incident response operations training, proficiency testing, and audits of
the selected state laboratories via cooperative agreements. EPA has awarded grants to state
laboratories in Connecticut, Texas, Washington, and Kansas. Each agreement will help decrease
the national radiological laboratory capacity/capability gap by 5 percent as was described to
                                          1149

-------
Congress during testimony in FY 2008. Gap reductions improve data available to Agency
decision-makers for appropriate health care actions and rapid response and recovery activities.

Expanded RadNet Monitoring System

EPA continues to enhance RadNet and strengthen the existing system's response capabilities,
including its ability to provide near real-time data directly to EPA decision-makers, states, local
officials, and DHS. Using the information that the radiation monitoring program provides, health
officials can guide the public to take essential actions to reduce exposures to radiation. By
monitoring potential impacts to population and public health, RadNet supports EPA's role in
incident assessment. EPA tracks its progress by measuring the percentage of the most populous
U.S. cities with RadNet ambient radiation air monitoring systems, which will provide data to
assist in protective  action determinations. In FY 2010, EPA's RadNet system expanded to reach
100 percent of the most populous cities. With 124 monitors in place, the system is reaching 53
percent of the population and providing 67 percent geographical coverage. Once all 134
purchased monitors are in place, EPA will achieve geographical coverage of 70 percent of the
continental United  States.
                                          1150

-------
Objective 1.5: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
                FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 1.5
                        (in thousands)
                      Objective 6
          Objective 4

          Objective 3

           Objective 2
                  Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1.205.805.4
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.5

       Met = 0
     Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
  February?, 2011 = 3
      (Total = 3)
EPA plays a key leadership role in moving the country toward the President's vision for a low-
carbon economy. While the Agency contributes by developing regulatory tools, it also works to
direct the creative energy of voluntary programs and help prepare society to meet the energy and
climate challenge. It will take decades to develop sufficient clean, renewable  energy supplies and
shift away from current reliance on fossil fuels; however, EPA has made great strides in pushing
the regulated community to provide cleaner energy and fuels and less polluting vehicle and
equipment engines,  encouraging energy conservation and efficiency, and helping to build more
sustainable communities.

The first of EPA's climate protection  programs was launched in 1991. Since then, these
programs have worked to reduce emissions of CC>2 and other potent GHGs, such as methane and
perfluorocarbons, and they will continue to deliver substantial energy and environmental benefits
over the next decade. Because many of the investments promoted through EPA's climate
programs involve energy-efficient equipment with lifetimes of decades or more, the investments
made to date will continue to deliver environmental and economic benefits through 2012 and
beyond. These programs continue to offer highly cost-effective approaches for delivering
environmental benefits across the country.

GHG Standards for Light Duty Vehicles

Responding to one of the first major directives of the Obama Administration, EPA and DOT
jointly established historic new federal rules that set the first-ever national GHG emission
standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light
trucks sold in the United States. Issued in April 2010, the rules could potentially save the average
buyer of a 2016 model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle and, nationally, will conserve
about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce nearly a billion tons of GHG emissions over the lives
                                           1151

-------
of the vehicles covered. Starting with 2012 model year vehicles, the rules together require
automakers to improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions by
approximately 5 percent every year. Specifically, the new program reduces CC>2 emissions by
about 960 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles regulated, equivalent to annual
emissions of about 50 million cars and light trucks in 2030.

GHG Reporting Program

EPA published the GHG Reporting Rule (formerly referred to as the Mandatory Reporting of
GHGs Rule) in the Federal Register on October 31, 2009. The rule (40 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] Part 98) established the first of its kind, comprehensive national system for
reporting annual GHG emissions from suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs as well as
large direct emitters. This rule allows EPA to collect accurate and  timely emission data under the
CAA that can be used to guide development of policies and programs to reduce emissions. The
GHG reporting program currently covers approximately 85 percent of the nation's GHG
emissions and includes an estimated 10,000 facilities. The first reports for 2010 data are due
March 31, 2011. Actions in 2010 include finalizing four subparts and establishing the electronic
GHG reporting tool (e-GGRT).

ENERGY STAR Initiatives

EPA manages several efforts, such as ENERGY STAR, to remove marketplace barriers and
accelerate the adoption and deployment of energy efficiency technology in the building,
industrial, and transportation sectors of the economy. EPA programs do not provide financial
subsidies. Instead, they work by overcoming market barriers to energy efficiency, such as lack of
clear and objective information on technology opportunities; lack of awareness of products,
services, and transportation choices; few incentives to manufacturers for research and
development (R&D); split incentives; and high transaction costs.

Enhanced ENERGY STAR Products Program

EPA met several important milestones and remains on track to implement enhanced ENERGY
STAR qualification requirements. EPA finalized requirements for  accreditation bodies and
laboratories to receive  EPA recognition and distributed a final draft of proposed requirements for
certification bodies and is currently refining the eligibility criteria  and partner commitments
across all 60 product categories to officially impose third-party certification for all products,
effective December 30, 2010. EPA is on track to roll out its top tier effort in early 2011 and will
complete 17 specification updates to address growing market share and  new federal standards
and complete specifications for five new products.  For additional information, see:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.

Improved Industrial Energy Efficiency through the ENERGY STAR Program

EPA's ENERGY STAR program has helped improve the energy efficiency of the auto
manufacturing industry by developing and publicizing a standardized metric to score the
efficiency of auto  assembly plants. According to a  June 2010 report by the Nicholas Institute for
                                          1152

-------
Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, the ENERGY STAR program's engagement
with the auto manufacturing sector has cut fossil fuel use by 12 percent and reduced GHGs by
more than 700,000 tons of CC>2. EPA also recognized the first group of manufacturing sites that
have met the ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry and reduced their energy intensity by 10
percent within five years or less. For additional information, see:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=industry.bus_industry.

Launched ENERGY STAR Initiatives to Improve the Performance of Buildings

EPA announced Building Performance with ENERGY STAR, a new pilot program designed to
help utilities and state energy efficiency programs achieve increased energy savings by
strategically pursuing whole building energy improvements with their business customers. In
April 2010, EPA also launched the National Building Competition, a coast-to-coast contest
between commercial buildings to save energy and fight global climate change. Stand-alone data
centers and buildings that house large data centers can now earn the ENERGY STAR. For
additional information, see: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_index.

Announced Enhanced Guidelines for ENERGY STAR Homes

EPA announced new, more rigorous guidelines (Version 3) for new homes to earn the ENERGY
STAR score. Compared with prior ENERGY STAR guidelines, the new requirements increase
the energy efficiency of qualified homes by more than  10 percent, making them more than 20
percent efficient than homes built to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. EPA also
launched a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program in Northern Virginia to test an
innovative program design. For additional information on ENERGY STAR for new homes, see:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=new_homes.hm_index. For more information on ENERGY
STAR for existing homes, see:
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home_improvement.hm_improvement_index.

SmartWay Transport

EPA's SmartWay Partnership Program works with goods movement shippers, freight providers,
and transportation technology manufacturers to accelerate the deployment of fuel saving, low-
emission technologies and operational strategies and to promote verifiable reductions in GHG
emissions across the global supply chain. SmartWay is a voluntary program addressing GHG
emissions and air pollution comprehensively across the freight transportation system. In a unique
collaboration, SmartWay and the major Class 8 truck and trailer manufacturers developed
specifications for a SmartWay branded tractor-trailer that achieves a 20-percent improvement in
fuel efficiency. All major Class 8 truck and trailer manufacturers now offer at least one
SmartWay certified model, and manufacturers estimate that this vehicle has already achieved a 5
percent market penetration. To date, more than 2,700 SmartWay partners have driven
approximately 650,000 trucks and traveled nearly 60 billion miles per year. As a result of
SmartWay partners' three-year commitment to upgrade trucks with auxiliary power units, fuel-
efficient tires, enhanced trailer aerodynamics, and other improvements, SmartWay partners have
conserved more than 1.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel, saved more than $3.5 billion, and
eliminated 14.7 million tons of CC>2 emissions.
                                         1153

-------
As EPA and DOT stated in the proposed GHG regulation for medium duty and heavy duty
vehicles, SmartWay demonstrated a number of the vehicle technologies that the agencies expect
manufacturers will employ to comply with the regulation, and SmartWay continues to
demonstrate new and emerging technologies that go beyond the requirements of the proposed
GHG emission standards.  SmartWay helps reduce emissions from the existing 2.2 million heavy
duty trucks currently in operation not covered by the proposed rule, which affects only new
vehicles starting with Model Year 2014. To address existing engines not subject to the new rule,
SmartWay promotes operational strategies for both shippers and carriers, such as more efficient
routing and packaging, more efficient driver behavior, and optimized model choice which can
substantially reduce freight emissions.

CAA Permitting Programs Tailored to Address GHGs

In May 2010, EPA completed a rule to address CAA permitting for GHG emissions from the
largest stationary sources. Facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG
emissions from  stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This
includes the nation's largest GHG emitters, which include power plants, refineries, and cement
production facilities; the current rules will not impact facilities like  small businesses and family
farms.

Climate Showcase Communities Grants Awarded

EPA awarded $10 million to 22 local governments and three tribes to implement community-
based GHG mitigation projects. The goal of these projects is to serve as models to other
communities across  the United States for reducing GHG emissions  cost effectively while also
generating co-benefits such as improving air and water quality, generating green jobs, and saving
consumer and government money. The projects have proposed to reduce about 180,000 metric
tons of GHG emissions annually (equivalent to the annual emissions from 34,000 passenger
vehicles or  15,000 homes) save more than $4.8 million per year in energy costs, and create more
than 60 jobs. For additional information, see:
http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/local/showcase/index.html.
                                          1154

-------
Objective 1.6: Enhance Science and Research
                FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 1.6
                         (in thousands)
           Objectives
          $105.166.80
             9%
          Objective 5
        Objective 4
        Objective 3

         Objective 2
                  Goal 1 Total Obligations = $1.205.805.4
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 1.6
       Met = 0
     Not Met = 1
  Data Available After
  February 7, 2011=0
      (Total = 1)
EPA's research is designed to provide a sound scientific foundation to inform state and federal
regulators about improving air quality.

EPA Research on the Effects of Roadway-Related Air Pollution

EPA continues to investigate pollution from vehicles operating on roads and its impact on human
health and the environment. Roadway emissions include pollutants from vehicle tailpipes, tires,
brakes, and the road surface itself. EPA's work supports understanding how traffic emissions
might lead to adverse health effects for people living, working, or going to school near large
roads. Studies also are identifying the most effective strategies and tools for controlling the
impact of traffic emissions and methods to reduce exposures. To better understand the amounts
of roadway air pollutants and the extent to which they travel from the road,  EPA collaborated
with the Federal Highway Administration to perform a measurement study around a highway in
Las Vegas, Nevada. The Las Vegas study, along with a similar Detroit  study, enhances the
Agency's understanding of pollution associated with vehicles and will inform development of a
model to estimate pollutant exposures near roads.

Enhanced Understanding of EPA's Air Research

In FY 2010, EPA improved communication with the public by developing an outreach effort to
highlight current research activities and EPA's accomplishments since Congress passed the CAA
40 years ago. AIR SCIENCE 40 included a video featuring prominent EPA and non-EPA
researchers describing significant air research accomplishments and their vision of what air
research is needed in a changing climate. EPA also developed a series of public seminars that
describe EPA's Clean Air research activities. The seminars were co-sponsored by the House
Science Committee on Science and Technology, the American Heart Association, the American
Thoracic Society, and the American Geophysical Union. Research supported by EPA grants was
                                          1155

-------
also highlighted in a series of webinars focused on advances in health and implementation
science achieved by the five PM centers and the Health Effects Institute. AIR SCIENCE 40
presentations, videos, and other materials are available at: www.epa.gov/airscience/.
                                           1156

-------
                               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 GHG
intensity by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.

OBJECTIVE: 1.1: HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR

Through 2014, 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.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
15
Total PMs
15
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.1: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze
Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze

Strategic Target (1)
By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in all monitored counties by 14 percent from the 2003
baseline, compared to the 8 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2008
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(M9) Cumulative percent
reduction in population-weighted
ambient concentration of ozone in
monitored counties from 2003
baseline
FY 2007
Target
6
Actual
6
FY 2008
Target
8
Actual
9
FY 2009
Target
10
Actual
12.5
FY2010
Target
11
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The ozone concentration measure reflects improvements (reductions) in ambient ozone concentrations across all monitored
counties, weighted by the populations in those areas. To calculate 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 (ppb)." The
2003 baseline is 15,972 million people-ppb.
                                                         1157

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MM9) Cumulative percent
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 2007
Target
16





Actual
28





FY 2008
Target
19





Actual
37





FY 2009
Target
23





Actual
47





FY2010
Target
26





Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011




Unit
Percent





Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is zero.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2015, reduce the population-weighted ambient concentration of PM2.5 in all monitored counties by 6 percent from the 2003
baseline, compared to the 4 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2008.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(M91) Cumulative percent
reduction in population-weighted
ambient concentration of fine
particulate matter (PM-2.5) in all
monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2007
Target
3
Actual
8
FY 2008
Target
4
Actual
13
FY 2009
Target
5
Actual
17
FY2010
Target
6
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The PM 2.5 concentration reduction annual measure reflects improvements (reductions) in the ambient concentration of fine
particulate 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 cubic meter" (million people ug/m3). The 2003 baseline is 2,581 people micrograms per cubic meter.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, reduce emissions of fine particles from mobile sources by 51,000 tons from a 2009 baseline level of 417,000 tons.
                                                          1158

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(P34) Tons of PM-2.5 reduced
since 2000 from mobile sources
FY 2007
Target
85,704
Actual
85,704
FY 2008
Target
97,947
Actual
97,497
FY 2009
Target
110,190
Actual
110,190
FY2010
Target
122,434
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions, and the 2000 baseline for PM2.5 from mobile
sources is 510,552 tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission factors
and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as
construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for
variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, reduce emissions of NOx from mobile sources by 2.1 million tons from a 2009 baseline level of 9.3 million tons.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(O34) Millions of tons of NOx
reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources
FY 2007
Target
2.37
Actual
2.37
FY 2008
Target
2.71
Actual
2.71
FY 2009
Target
3.05
Actual
3.05
FY2010
Target
3.39
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for NOx emissions from
mobile sources is 1 1.8 million tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant
emission factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines,
such as construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates
for variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, reduce emissions of VOCs from mobile sources by 1.1 million tons from a 2009 baseline level of 5.9 million tons.
                                                           1159

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(O33) Millions of tons of VOCs
reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources
FY 2007
Target
1.20
Actual
1.20
FY 2008
Target
1.37
Actual
1.37
FY 2009
Target
1.54
Actual
1.54
FY2010
Target
1.71
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Tons
Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for VOC emissions from
mobile sources is 7.7 million tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant
emission factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines,
such as construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates
for variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories.
Strategic Target (6)
By 2018, visibility in eastern Class I areas will improve by 15 percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility
on the 20 percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.

Strategic Target (7)
By 2018, visibility in western Class I areas will improve by 5 percent on the 20 percent worst visibility days, as compared to visibility
on the 20 percent worst days during the 2000-2004 baseline period.

Strategic Target (8)
By 2014, with EPA support, 47 additional tribal air quality emission inventories will be completed, for a cumulative total of 84. (FY
2007 baseline: 37 tribal emission inventories)

Strategic Target (9)
By 2014, with EPA support, 12 additional tribes will possess the expertise and capability to implement the CAA in Indian country (as
demonstrated by successful completion of an eligibility determination under the Tribal Authority Rule), for a cumulative total of 22
tribes.
                                                            1160

-------
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(M92) 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
Target
21
Actual
42
FY 2008
Target
25
Actual
52
FY 2009
Target
29
Actual
59
FY2010
Target
33
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The baseline in 2002 is 0 (zero).
(M94) Percent of major NSR
permits issued within one year of
receiving a complete permit
application
75
83
78
79
78
76
78
Data
Avail
12/2011
Percent
Baseline - The baseline in 2004 is 61 percent.
(M95) Percent of significant Title
V operating permit revisions
issued within 18 months of
receiving a complete permit
application
94
81
97
85
100
87
100
Data
Avail
12/2011
Percent
Baseline - The baseline in 2004 is 85 percent.
(M96) Percent of new Title V
operating permits issued within 18
months of receiving a complete
permit application
87
51
91
72
95
70
99
Data
Avail
12/2011
Percent
Baseline - The baseline in 2004 is 75 percent.
(N35) Limit the increase of CO
emissions (in tons) from mobile
sources compared to a 2000
baseline
1.18
1.18
1.35
1.35
1.52
1.52
1.69
Data
Avail
12/2011
Tons
                                                          1161

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
  Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for CO from mobile
  sources was 79.2 million tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission
  factors and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as
  construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for
  variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories.
(P33) Tons of PM-10 Reduced
since 2000 from Mobile Sources

87,026


87,026


99,458


99,458


111,890


111,890


124,322


Data
Avail
12/2011
Tons


  Baseline - The 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline for PM-10 from mobile
  source is 613,497 tons. Note that the target number was generated in 2002 based upon EPA models which use pollutant emission factors
  and generate air quality inventories for on-highway vehicles, including passenger cars and trucks, and nonroad engines, such as
  construction/agricultural equipment. Data for the "actual" column is derived by applying the EPA models with revised estimates for
  variables such as annual VMT for different vehicle categories.	

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.2: Reduce Air Toxics
Reduce Air Toxics

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 34 percent from the 1993 non-
weighted baseline of 7.24 million tons, maintaining the 34 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2006.
                                                          1162

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(001) Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 1993
baseline
FY 2007
Target
35
Actual
39
FY 2008
Target
35
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY 2009
Target
36
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY2010
Target
36
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for air toxics along with the
Agency's compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria to develop a risk metric that can be tabulated on an annual basis. The
1993 baseline is 7.24 million tons (2007 actual is 39 percent). The 1993 baseline represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted).
When the cancer and noncancer weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is
also 7.24 million tons/year in the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years. Intervening years (the two years
after the inventory year) are interpolated utilizing inventory projection models.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, reduce toxicity-weighted (for non-cancer risk) emissions of air toxics to a cumulative reduction of 59 percent from the 1993
non-weighted baseline of 7.24 million tons, compared to the 58 percent cumulative reduction expected by 2006.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(002) Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for non-cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 1993
baseline
FY 2007
Target
58
Actual
53
FY 2008
Target
59
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY 2009
Target
59
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011
FY2010
Target
59
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The toxicity-weighted emission inventory utilizes 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 on an annual basis. The 1993 baseline is 7.24 million tons
(2007 actual is 53 percent). This 1993 baseline represents the total tons of toxics (i.e., unweighted). When the cancer and noncancer
weighted emissions are calculated, the weighted emissions are normalized so that the baseline for those is also 7.24 million tons/year in
the baseline year. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years. Intervening years (the two years after the inventory year) are
interpolated utilizing inventory projection models.
                                                          1163

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.1.3: Reduce the Adverse Effects of Acid Deposition
Reduce the Adverse Effects of Acid Deposition

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, due to progress in reducing acid deposition, the number of chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions of the
northern and eastern United States should  be  maintained at or below the 2001 baseline of approximately 500 lakes and 5,000
kilometers of stream-length in the population covered by the Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems/Long-Term Monitoring
Survey. The long-term target is a 20 percent reduction in the number of chronically-acidic water bodies in acid-sensitive regions by
2030.

Strategic Target (2)
Through 2015,  maintain the national annual emissions of 862 from utility electric power generation sources at a level below  8.95
million annual tons, compared to the 1980 level of 17.4 million tons per year.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(A01) Maintain annual emissions
of SC>2 from utility electric power
generation sources nationwide at
or below 6 million tons
FY 2007
Target
7,500,00
0
Actual
8,450,00
0
FY 2008
Target
8,000,00
0
Actual
7,600,00
0
FY 2009
Target
8,000,00
0
Actual
5,700,00
0
FY2010
Target
8,450,00
0
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Tons
Reduced
Baseline - The baseline year is 1980. The 1980 SC>2 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
CAA Amendments. This data is also contained in EPA's National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Report. Statutory 862 emissions cap for
year 2010 and later are at 8.95 million tons, approximately 8.5 million tons below 1980 emissions level. "Allowable SC>2 emission level"
consists of allowance allocations granted to sources each year under several provisions of the CAA and additional allowances carried
over, or banked, from previous years.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, reduce total annual average sulfur deposition by 20 percent from 2001 monitored levels of up to 15 kilograms per hectare for
total sulfur deposition.
                                                           1164

-------
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition by 30 percent from 2001 monitored levels of up to 9 kilograms per hectare
for total nitrogen deposition.

OBJECTIVE: 1.2: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR

Through 2014, working with partners, reduce  human health risks by reducing exposure to indoor air contaminants through the
promotion of voluntary actions by the public.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
5
Total PMs
5
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.1: Reduce Exposure to Radon
Reduce Exposure to Radon

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, the number of future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually through lowered radon exposure to 1,270 from the
2006 baseline of 644 future premature lung cancer deaths prevented.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R50) Percent of existing homes
with an operating mitigation
system compared to the estimated
number of homes at or above
EPA's 4pCi/L action level
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established



Actual
10.3




FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established



Actual
11.0




FY 2009
Target
11.5




Actual
12.0




FY2010
Target
12.0




Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011



Unit
Percent




Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 6.9 percent.
(R51) Percent of all new single-
family homes in high radon
potential areas built with radon-
reducing features
No Target
Established


28.6



No Target
Established


31.0



31.5



36.1



33



Data
Avail
12/2011

Percent



                                                         1165

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 21 percent.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.2: Reduce Exposure to Asthma Triggers
Reduce Exposure to Asthma Triggers

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, the number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers will increase to
7.2 million from the 2003 baseline of 3 million. EPA will place special emphasis on children and other disproportionately impacted
populations.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R16) Percent of public that is
aware of the asthma program's
media campaign
FY 2007
Target
>20
Actual
Data Not
Avail
FY 2008
Target
>20
Actual
Data Not
Avail
FY 2009
Target
>20
Actual
33
FY2010
Target
>30
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - Public awareness is measured prior to the launch of a new wave of the campaign. No new advertising was launched in 2007 or
2008.
(R17) Additional health care
professionals trained annually by
EPA and its partners on the
environmental management of
asthma triggers
2,000
4,582
2,000
4,558
2,000
4,614
2,000
Data
Avail
12/2011
Professional
s
Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 2,360 trained health care professionals.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.2.3: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Air Contaminants in Schools
Reduce Exposure to Indoor Air Contaminants in Schools

Strategic Target (1)
By 2018, the number of schools implementing an effective indoor air quality management plan will increase to 43,000 from the 2006
baseline of 38,000.
                                                         1166

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R22) Estimated annual number of
schools establishing indoor air
quality programs based on EPA's
Tools for Schools guidance
FY 2007
Target
1,100
Actual
1,346
FY 2008
Target
1,100
Actual
1,614
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
1,765
FY2010
Target
1,000
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Schools
Baseline - The baseline in 2003 is 3,200 schools.
OBJECTIVE: 1.3: PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER

Through 2014, continue efforts to restore the earth's stratospheric ozone layer and protect the public from the harmful effects of UV
radiation.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
1
Total PMs
1
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.3.1: Heal the Ozone Layer
Heal the Ozone Layer

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, total effective equivalent stratospheric chlorine will have reached its peak of 3.185 ppb of air by volume and begun its
gradual decline to a value less than 1.8 ppb (1980 level).

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.3.2: Reduce Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances
Reduce Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances

Strategic Target (1)
By 2015, reduce U.S. consumption of Class II ozone-depleting substances  to less than 1,520 tons per year of OOP from the 2009
baseline of 9,900 tons per year.
                                                         1167

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(SOI) Remaining US Consumption
of HCFCs, chemicals that deplete
the Earth's protective ozone layer,
measured in tons of ODP
FY 2007
Target
<9,900
Actual
6,296
FY 2008
Target
<9,900
Actual
5,667
FY 2009
Target
<9,900
Actual
3,414
FY2010
Target
<3,811
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
ODP tons
Baseline - The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of Class
II HCFCs as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each ozone depleting substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it does
to the stratospheric ozone - this is its ODP. Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic ODP-
weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the ODP -weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import
minus export. The HCFC baseline in 1985 for the United States is 15,240 ODP.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.3.3: Reduce Exposure to Excess UV Radiation
Reduce Exposure to Excess UV Radiation

Strategic Target (1)
By 2165, reduce the incidence of melanoma skin cancer in the U.S. to 14 new skin cancer cases per 100,000 people from the 2005
baseline of 21.5 cases per 100,000 people.

OBJECTIVE: 1.4: RADIATION

Through 2014, working with  partners, minimize unnecessary releases of radiation and be prepared to minimize impacts to human
health and the environment should unwanted releases occur.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
O
Total PMs
3
                                                        1168

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.4.1: Monitor the Environment for Radiation
Monitor the Environment for Radiation
Strategic Target (1)
By 2014,  51 percent of the U.S. population will be within 15 miles of an ambient radiation monitoring system that provides
scientifically sound data for assessing public exposure resulting from radiological emergencies.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R34) 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
Target
80





Actual
87





FY 2008
Target
85





Actual
92





FY 2009
Target
90





Actual
98





FY2010
Target
95





Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011




Unit
Percent





Baseline - The baseline in 2005 is 55 percent for the 100 most populous cities in the United States.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.4.2: Prepare for and Respond to Radiological Emergencies
Prepare for and Respond to Radiological Emergencies

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, the radiation program will maintain a 90 percent level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support
federal radiological emergency response and recovery operations.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R35) Level of readiness of
radiation program personnel and
assets to support federal
radiological emergency response
and recovery operations
FY 2007
Target
80




Actual
83




FY 2008
Target
85




Actual
87




FY 2009
Target
90




Actual
90




FY2010
Target
90




Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011



Unit
Percent




Baseline - The baseline in 2005 for the emergency response program readiness is 50 percent.
                                                          1169

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(R39) 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
Target
20






Actual
21






FY 2008
Target
35






Actual
37






FY 2009
Target
50






Actual
50






FY2010
Target
60






Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011





Unit
Percent






Baseline - The baseline in 2005 for the emergency response program readiness is 0 (zero) percent.
OBJECTIVE: 1.5: REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS

Through 2014, continue to reduce GHG emissions through voluntary climate protection programs that accelerate the adoption of cost-
effective GHG reducing technologies and practices.
PMs Met
0
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
O
Total PMs
3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.5.1: Reduce GHG Emissions

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, 53 MMTCE will be reduced in the buildings sector (compared to 30 MMTCE reduced in 2006) through EPA's voluntary
climate protection programs.
                                                        1170

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(G02)MMTCEofGHG
reductions in the buildings sector
FY 2007
Target
29.4
Actual
36.10
FY 2008
Target
32.4
Actual
38.4
FY 2009
Target
35.5
Actual
39.1
FY2010
Target
39.0
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
MMTCE
Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. GHG 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 US electric power sector. Baseline data for
non- CC>2 emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information
is discussed at length in the US Climate Action Report 2002 (httrj://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/).
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, 112 MMTCE will be reduced in the industry sector (compared to 69 MMTCE reduced in 2006) through EPA's voluntary
climate protection programs.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(G16) Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of
GHG reductions in the industry
sector
FY 2007
Target
62.6
Actual
72.9
FY 2008
Target
67.7
Actual
79.0
FY 2009
Target
72.9
Actual
80.2
FY2010
Target
82.9
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
MMCTE
Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. GHG emissions in the absence of the US climate
change programs. The baseline was developed as part of an interagency evaluation of the US 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 EIA and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the US electric power sector. Baseline data for non- CC>2 emissions, including
nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length in the US
Climate Action Report 2002 (httix//^^
Strategic Target (3)
By  2014, 20 MMTCE will be reduced in the transportation sector (compared to 0.6 MMTCE reduced in 2006) through EPA's
voluntary climate protection programs.
                                                         1171

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(G06)MMTCEofGHG
reductions in the transportation
sector
FY 2007
Target
4.2
Actual
1.2
FY 2008
Target
1.5
Actual
1.6
FY 2009
Target
2.6
Actual
6
FY2010
Target
4.3
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
MMTCE
Baseline - The baseline for evaluating program performance is a projection of U.S. GHG 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 EIA and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model of the U.S. electric power sector. Baseline data for non- CC>2 emissions,
including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases are maintained by EPA. Baseline information is discussed at length
in the US Climate Action Report 2002 (httrj://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/).
OBJECTIVE: 1.6: 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.
PMs Met
u
PMs Not Met
1
Data Available After February 7,
2011
0
Total PMs
1
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 1.6.1: Clean Air Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2013, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
protecting the air and reducing risks to human health.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H05) Percentage of NAAQS
publications rated as highly cited
publications
FY 2007
Target
35.7
Actual
32.9
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
33.9
Actual
34.1
FY2010
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial

Unit
Percent
Baseline - As of FY 2007, 32.9 percent of NAAQS program publications were rated as highly cited papers.
                                                         1172

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H35) Percent planned actions
accomplished toward the long-
term goal of reducing uncertainty
in the science that supports
standard setting and air quality
management decisions (research)
FY 2007
Target
100





Actual
100





FY 2008
Target
100





Actual
100





FY 2009
Target
100





Actual
100





FY2010
Target
100





Actual
80






Unit
Percent





Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions that support the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science
that supports the standard-setting and air quality management decisions. The program completed 71 percent of its actions in support of this
goal in 2003. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of developing a better understanding and characterization of human health and
environmental outcomes related to clean air.
Explanation - 80 percent of the program's planned outputs were met. The incomplete output is a joint verification between U.S.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) and ETV Canada. The plan was to test the performance of an airborne methane/ethane
(fugitive) emission detection technology. EPA developed a test plan titled, "Joint Test/QA Plan for Verification of Airborne Leak
Detection Systems" (available at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/vt-ams.html).  To complete this verification, the vendor initially agreed
to match private funds with EPA in-kind resources. However, the vendor did not provide the funds. The vendor must provide additional
funds to complete this verification. Given recent nonpayment, the PI does not expect the vendor to fund the rest of the project, thus the
verification will not be completed.	
                                                         1173

-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
             1174

-------
                      GOAL 2 AT A GLANCE:  CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
                                   FY 2010  Performance Measures

                      20 Not Met = 8 Data Available After 2/7/11 = 11* (Total Measures = 39)
           This total Includes 2 performance measures under Objective 3 for which the Agency did not collect data.
       How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                                            Goal 2 Performance Measures
                  (Dollars mThousands)
        Healthy
      Communities
     and Ecosystems
       $1,952.626.3
          16.4%
Compliance and
 Environmental
  Stewardship
  $814.298.8
     6.9%
        Source: FY 2010 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
                                                              Objective I
                                                                              Objective 2
                                                                                              Objective 3
                                Goal 2 FY 2010 Performance and Resources
                               Strategic Objective
                                                           FY2010
                                                          Obligations
                                                        (in thousands)
 %of
Goal 2
Funds
  Objective 1—Protect Human Health: Protect human health by reducing exposure to
  contaminants in drinking water (including protecting source waters), in fish and shell-
  fish, and in recreational waters.
                                                        $1,560,386.3
 36%
  Objective 2—Protect Water Quality: Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams
  on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
                                                        $2,587,289.7
 60%
  Objective 3—Enhance Science and Research: By 2011, conduct leading-edge,
  sound scientific research to support the protection of human health through the reduc-
  tion 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.
                                                         $155,779.8
 4%
  Goal 2 Total
                                                         $4,303,455.8
100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                                    1175

-------
Goal Purpose

In coordination with its partners, EPA ensures that drinking water is safe and restores and
maintains the quality of the nation's surface waters.

To ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the Agency sets limits for drinking water contaminants;
helps to sustain the network of pipes and treatment facilities that constitute the nation's water
infrastructure; and works with water systems to plan for, prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist
or other threats to drinking water supplies. EPA works with state and local partners to implement
source water protection plans for the area surrounding drinking water sources. Also, with the
assistance of state and tribal partners, the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program
regulates the subsurface injections of hazardous and nonhazardous substances in wells.

To protect surface waters, EPA works with state and tribal partners to implement core clean
water programs to protect waters nationwide by strengthening water quality standards;
improving water quality monitoring and assessment; implementing TMDLs and other watershed
related plans; strengthening the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
program, particularly through the issuance of high-priority and
stormwater permits; and implementing practices to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources. EPA
also works with stakeholders across the water sector to promote Sustainable Water Infrastructure
through changes  in management practice and by providing infrastructure funding assistance
through the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds.

While EPA continues to make progress toward clean and safe water,  challenges remain. For
example, drinking water systems and improvements in water quality  are increasingly  stressed
because of aging infrastructure and expanding populations. In this  section, EPA reports on
accomplishments and challenges in addressing water quality issues—strengthening and
improving drinking water standards, maintaining safe water quality at public beaches, restoring
polluted water bodies, and improving the health of coastal waters.

Contributing Programs

Analytical Methods, Beach Program, Coastal and Ocean Programs, Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, Cooling Water Intakes Program, Drinking Water and Ground Water Protection Programs,
DWSRF, Drinking Water Research, Effluent Guidelines, Fish Consumption Advisories, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control, Pollutant Load
Allocation, Surface Water Protection Program, Sustainable Infrastructure Program, Total Daily
Maximum Loads, UIC Program, Wastewater Management, Water Efficiency, Water Quality
Standards and Criteria, Watershed Management, Water Monitoring, and Water Quality Research.

EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended
outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program  evaluations related to Goal
2, please see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/fmancialperformancereports.htm, which
summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
                                          1176

-------
Objective 2.1: Protect Human Health
               FY2010 Obligations: Objective 2.1
                       (in thousands)
              Objectives
                Goal 2 Total Obligations = $4,303,455.8
                                                               FY 2010 Performance
                                                              Measures: Objective 2.1

                                                                     Met =8
                                                                    Not Met = 3
                                                                Data Available After
                                                                February 7, 2011 = 3
                                                                    (Total = 14)
In collaboration with states and tribes, EPA is working to protect human health by reducing
contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters.

Public Drinking Water Supplies

EPA and its partners are making progress in providing the public with drinking water that meets
health-based standards. Water systems across the country are working to meet standards for more
than 90 contaminants to keep drinking water safe and secure. In FY 2010, 92 percent of
Americans were served by community water systems that met applicable health-based drinking
water standards.

Small Drinking Water Systems

Water systems must ensure reliable delivery of water to their customers, as well as meet existing
national health-based standards for more than 90 chemical, radiological, and microbial
contaminants and implement several more recent standards. In FY 2010, EPA continued to
support state efforts to improve small systems' technical, managerial, and financial capacity to
consistently meet regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the  Agency promoted the use of cost-
effective treatment technologies, proper disposal of treatment residuals, and compliance with
regulatory requirements for arsenic, radio-nuclides, microbial pathogens, and disinfection
byproducts. EPA supports small drinking water system efforts to optimize treatment technology
under the Drinking Water Treatment Area wide Optimization Program. This program is a highly
successful technical assistance training program that enhances the ability of small systems to
meet existing and future microbial, disinfectant, and  disinfection byproduct standards. EPA also
promoted best practices for operating and maintaining small  systems to achieve long-term
compliance with existing regulations.
                                           1177

-------
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

EPA's UIC Program continues to make progress in addressing significant violations for Class I,
II, and III wells. In addition, the program is identifying and closing or permitting high-priority
Class V wells, including motor vehicle waste disposal wells in community water system source
water protection areas.

In FY 2010, EPA worked to develop regulations for a new class of injection well—Class VI—
with specific requirements for regulating geologic sequestration. The final rule was released in
early FY 2011. Geologic sequestration is the process of injecting captured carbon dioxide from a
source, such as a coal-fired electric generating power plant, through a well into deep subsurface
geologic formations of the earth. Carbon capture and geologic sequestration could play a major
role in isolating, and thereby reducing, emissions of CC>2 to the atmosphere. EPA  worked closely
with federal, state, industry, and international organizations on all facets of developing and
implementing geologic sequestration technology, including financial responsibility mechanisms.
Future challenges include finalizing the regulations and cultivating UIC primacy program
capacity, such as providing permit assistance, supporting analysis of risks associated with carbon
sequestration, and developing technical assistance information.

Drinking Water Contaminant List

EPA published the final Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) in October 2009. The list consists of
104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbiological contaminants. Of the contaminants on
the list, EPA must determine whether or not to regulate these contaminants at least five every
five years.

To address multiple contaminants, EPA has developed a new Drinking Water Strategy to identify
better ways to address contaminants in groups, improve drinking water technology, address
potential risks using multiple statutes if warranted, and to work more closely with state partners.
To inform the new strategy, EPA initiated a national dialogue to engage stakeholders and the
public in developing innovative technical and procedural approaches by holding five Listening
Sessions (one in Chicago, Illinois; two in Washington, D.C.; one in Cincinnati, Ohio; and one in
Rancho Cucamonga, California) and conducting an online Web dialogue. For additional
information, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/dwstrategy/index.cfm.

EPA proposed revisions to its most comprehensive microbial drinking water rule, the Total
Coliform Rule, based on extensive stakeholder input. As proposed, EPA expects the rule to
improve public health protection by requiring all public water systems to investigate for and
correct any sanitary defects found when monitoring results indicate that the system might be
vulnerable to contamination.
                                           1178

-------
Public Access to Fish Advisory Information

EPA works to reduce the release of contaminants into the nation's waters and conducts activities
to expand information access about safe fish consumption. In FY 2010, EPA continued work
with states and tribes in monitoring fish contaminants and issuing fish consumption advice. EPA
also encouraged states to revisit existing advisories to evaluate whether contaminant levels in
fish tissue have improved enough to revise those advisories. In FY 2010, EPA completed its
report of a study in which the Agency measured mercury concentrations in fish tissue at pre-
1996 mercury advisory sites revisited in 2007. The purpose of the study was to assess the need
for  changes to existing meal consumption advice as a result of changes in mercury concentration
and application of a standardized risk assessment methodology. The study concluded that an
estimated 58 percent of the historic mercury advisory sites studied warrant some change to their
existing fish consumption advice. EPA also completed a report evaluating the effectiveness of
outreach for the Mississippi Delta fish consumption advisory.

Safe Swimming Beaches

Through its Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) Program,
EPA is working with state,  tribal, and local governmental partners to make beach advisory
information available to the public. Under EPA's BEACH Program, 37 states, territories,  and
tribes monitored 3,819 beaches to ensure that they were safe for swimming. EPA met its FY
2010 goal with coastal and  Great Lakes beaches open 95 percent of beach season days. Of the
764,377 beach season days during the year, 5 percent were restricted because of contamination-
related closings or advisories. Most (88 percent) of beach notification actions reported during the
2009 swimming season lasted a week or less, and 60 percent lasted only one or two days.
                                          1179

-------
Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality
                FY2010 Obligations: Objective 2.2
                       (in thousands)
                        Objectives
                   Objective 2
                  $2,587,289.70
                     60%
                 Goal 2 Total Obligations = $4,303,455.8
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 2.2

       Met =9
     Not Met = 3
  Data Available After
  February?, 2011 = 6
     (Total = 18)
EPA works with federal, state, and tribal partners to ensure the quality of America's waters. The
Agency works to protect rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands on a watershed basis, and to protect
urban, coastal, and ocean waters.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds

In FY 2010, EPA continued to manage the DWSRF and CWSRF base programs while obligating
additional funding provided under the ARRA. Since FY 2009, the CWSRF reported that 1,834
projects have begun construction, with 235 complete and $1.13 billion (30 percent) of funds
invested in "green" projects. The DWSRF reported that 1,338  projects have begun construction,
with 183 complete and $539 million (29 percent) of funds invested in "green" projects.

Mountaintop Mining

In 2009 and 2010, EPA completed several of the short-term actions under the July 11, 2009,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers (USAGE), including publishing an interim guide to the states on
effective use of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 certification and conducting a permit
quality review of issued Section 402 permits. Substantial progress was made in improving
interagency coordination with DOI and the USAGE. EPA also released interim guidance on
reviewing surface coal mining applications under CWA Section 402 and 404, as well  as the
National Environmental Policy Act and EO 12898 on Environmental Justice. For additional
information, see:
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/pdf/appalachian mtntop  mining  detailed.pdf.
                                          1180

-------
Discharges of Pollution Into the Nation's Water

Data that became available in FY 2010 show that during FY 2009, under EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, permits that implemented standards for industrial
sources, municipal treatment plants, and stormwater prevented the discharge of 187 billion Ib of
pollutants into waterways. EPA and states exceeded their goal of issuing 95 percent of
designated priority National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. EPA approved
90.9 percent of the new or revised water quality standards that states submitted for the year,
exceeding the performance goal of 85 percent. This accomplishment reflects EPA's and states'
continuing efforts to work together more closely during states' formulation of new and revised
standards.

Water Quality

States assess about one-third of the nation's waters, and almost half (46 percent)  of these waters
do not meet state standards for fishing, swimming, and other uses. In fact, states are adding more
waters to the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters than are cleaned up to  meet state
standards. Since the baseline was established in 2002,  states added more than 4,000 waterbodies
to the list of impaired waters, and 2,909 have been identified to now meet state standards. States
also made significant progress in restoring waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution,
tackling this difficult problem by  developing and implementing watershed-based plans that
assess the sources of pollution and identify solutions. In FY 2010, states remediated 65 waters
that had been impaired by nonpoint source pollution, bringing the total number of remediated
waters to 212. Detailed summaries of each of these successful remediation projects may be
reviewed at: www. epa. gov/nps/success. By the end of FY 2010, EPA and states completed more
than 42,000 EPA-approved waterbody pollutant reduction plans (TMDLs). A TMDL is a plan
for ensuring that a waterbody meets the Agency's water quality standards for specific pollutants.
For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/.

Assessment of Nation's Waters

EPA is working with its state and tribal partners on a series of statistically representative surveys
of the aquatic resources of the United States—its streams, rivers, lakes,  coastal waters, and
wetlands. The surveys are designed to yield unbiased estimates of the condition of each resource,
based on a representative sample  of waters. Working with its state and tribal partners, EPA
released the first baseline study of the condition of the nation's lakes. The landmark National
Lakes Assessment is the first time a national monitoring study of the overall condition of lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs has been conducted using a statistically valid approach. The results allow
EPA to assert confidently that 56  percent of the nation's lakes are in good ecological  condition
and that lakeshore degradation is  a primary stressor to overall lake health. The assessment helps
states and tribes implement their lake monitoring and assessment programs by establishing a
baseline for lake condition that can be used for future trend assessments and providing eco-
regional data important for resource management decisions. For additional information, see:
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/reporting.html and
www. epa. gov/owow/lakes/lakessurvev/#report.
                                          1181

-------
Coastal Waters
In FY 2010, EPA began implementing the 5th National Coastal Condition Assessment (NCCA).
Working with states, the Agency sampled more than 1,000 sites around the nation's coasts and
the Great Lakes to examine the ecological condition of U.S. coastal waters. The sampling design
uses a probability-based network that will provide statistically valid estimates of the condition of
all coastal waters with known confidence. Coupled with this year's survey, EPA expanded the
NCCA to include sampling and analysis of additional indicators, notably oil- and dispersant-
related compounds from stations located in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA will continue to integrate
the Gulf restoration effort into the NCCA program to meet the Agency's long-term monitoring
and restoration needs. The results of the survey will serve both federal and state needs by
providing current and trend data to inform coastal management decisions. For additional
information, see: http://water.epa.gov/tvpe/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/index.cfm and
http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/monitoring/nationalsurveys.cfm.

Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Number ofTMDL) That Are Established
or Approved by EPA (Total TMDLs) on  a Schedule Consistent With National Policy
(Cumulative)

A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality standards.
The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and approval of the TMDL
itself.
                                       WQ-8a
                # of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA
                [Total TMDLs] on a schedule consistent with national
                                 policy (cumulative)
          50000
                                                         I Annual Target
                                                         I End-of-Year Results
                  2006
2007    2008    2009
2010
                                         1182

-------
What This Shows: A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to
the pollutant's sources. Water quality standards are set by states, territories, and tribes. National
policy is to complete TMDLs for impaired waters within eight to 13 years from their date of
initial CWA Section 303(d) listing and all consent decree TMDL commitments. TMDLs are one
of the many tools used to help reduce pollution. The number of TMDLs needed to address
outstanding causes of impairment changes with each 303(d) list cycle; therefore, a baseline as
such is not appropriate for is measure. As shown by the graph, EPA continues to exceed its
annual targets for TMDL development.  In FY 2010, the program measure was exceeded
primarily because EPA Region 3 established an estimated 2,600 TMDLs for Pennsylvania
because the state faced budget cuts and  layoffs that impacted its ability to develop TMDLs.

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 in the
Assessment TMDL Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS). More specifically, the
Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERS) system allows search
for TMDL documents at: www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/tmdl document search.html.

Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information, EPA
continues to improve the ATTAINS database and oversee quality review of existing data. Data
quality has improved and will continue  to improve as existing data entry requirements and
procedures are being reevaluated and communicated with data entry practitioners. For additional
information, see: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir.
                                          1183

-------
Objective 2.3: Enhance Science and Research
       Objective 3
       $155,779.80
          4%
                 FY2010 Obligations: Objective 2.3
                         (in thousands)
                  Goal 2 Total Obligations = $4,303,455.:
   FY 2010 Performance
  Measures: Objective 2.3

         Met =3
       Not Met = 2
    Data Available After
    February?, 2011 = 2*
        (Total = 7)
*
 This total includes 2 performance
measures for which the Agency did
not collect data.
EPA's research programs support a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect and
improve the sources of our drinking water and surface water quality. In FY 2010, EPA made
several advances in improving water quality models and advancing the knowledge essential for
support of CWA regulatory and nonregulatory activities.

Impacts of Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems

Mountaintop mining, used in some regions where coal is a resource, is a process by which a
portion or all of the top of a mountain is removed to expose and remove coal. Valleys or hollows
adjacent to the mining site are used as a repository for the excess fill material. Buildup of
constructed fills in small valleys or hollows can alter stream ecosystems and has potentially
significant implications for the Central Appalachian region of the United States. In FY 2010,
EPA released The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the
Central Appalachian Coalfields (External Review Draft), a review of the most advanced and
contemporary science regarding the water-related environmental impacts of mountaintop mining
and valley fills in Central Appalachia. The report concludes that mountaintop mining leads to
alterations of stream ecosystems including the permanent loss of springs and small water sources
that were buried under the fill, a long-term increase in pollutants in waters downstream from the
area, significant degrading of the water quality in the region (based on lethality of assay test
organisms), and toxic effects in fish and birds.

Characterization of Exposure from Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)

Research has shown that pharmaceuticals are present in the nation's waters. Understanding the
potential risks from exposures to PPCPs and communicating these risks to decision-makers and
the public is essential to ensuring the safety of our water. The potential risks of PPCP exposure
in water sources are uncertain, and research findings suggest that certain drugs might cause
detrimental ecological effects. Large quantities of PPCPs can enter the environment from
                                           1184

-------
individual human or domestic animal sources, and current sewage treatment systems are not
equipped to remove PPCPs from the water supply. In FY 2010, EPA developed methods for
measuring PPCPs in surface waters, wastewaters, and biosolids and prepared a literature review
on the environmental impact of disposal of leftover unwanted pharmaceuticals in developing
drug disposal policies. These two major developments will enhance methods to define the
potential exposure to PPCPs, which will aid in informing policies in this area. For additional
information, see: http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/.

Permeable Parking Lots to Protect Water Resources

Green infrastructure practices, such as the development and use of permeable surfaces that allow
water to penetrate the surface, can significantly reduce stormwater runoff and protect local water
resources in urban and suburban communities. As a relatively new solution to stormwater
management, EPA recognized the need for credible data and information regarding the long-term
performance and maintenance requirements of green infrastructure practices, as well as their
impact and value on the water quality of the runoff and infiltrate. In FY 2010, EPA began a long-
term assessment of multiple permeable parking lot surface types at its Edison Environmental
Center. This parking lot functions as a state-of-the-art research and demonstration site for other
federal facilities, and is a public outreach tool  displaying green stormwater management. For
additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/awi.

Improved Identification of Fecal Contamination in Water Bodies

In FY 2010, EPA completed an initial assessment of the molecular-based assays with potential
for providing the indication of the sources  (human, bovine, or avian) of fecal contamination in
our waters. The findings demonstrated that some tools (assays/models) are more robust than
others. Many factors affect the ability of these tools to fully identify the unique sources of fecal
contamination, and efforts are ongoing to determine the information needed to provide clear
recommendations for the use of specific assays.
                                          1185

-------
                                          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: 2.1: 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.
PMs Met
8
PMs Not Met
3
Data Available After February 7,
2011
O
Total PMs
14
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.1: Water Safe to Drink
Water Safe to Drink

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, 93  percent 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.
                                                           1186

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(aa) Percent of population served
by community water systems that
will receive drinking water that
meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards through
approaches including effective
treatment and source water
protection (ARRA measure)*
FY 2007
Target
94
Actual
91.5
FY 2008
Target
90
Actual
92
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results
2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals inc
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
92.1
FY2010
Target
90
Actual
92

Unit
Percent
Population
FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus
see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv. FY
;lude ARRA funding.
Baseline - In 2002, 93.6 percent of the population that was served by community water systems and 96 percent 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,
and arsenic.
(ape) Fund utilization rate for the
DWSRF (ARRA measure)*
85
88
86
90
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results
2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals inc
89
92
86
91.3
Rate
FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus
see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv. FY
;lude ARRA funding.
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is a 79.2 percent fund utilization rate in 2003.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, 90 percent of community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards through approaches including effective treatment and source water protection.
                                                            1187

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(apd) Number of additional
projects initiating operations
(ARRA measure)*
*The program which this me
separately and can be found
However, FY 2010 actuals ir
FY 2007
Target
433
Actual
438
FY 2008
Target
440
Actual
445
FY 2009
Target
445
asure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The
it: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv. FY2
iclude ARRA funding.
Actual
480
FY2010
Target
450
Actual
668

Unit
Projects
results from ARRA funding are being tracked
010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds.
Baseline - In 2002, 1,538 projects were initiating operations.
(aph) Percent of community water
systems that have undergone a
sanitary survey within the past
three years (five years for
outstanding performance)
95
92
95
87
95
88
95
87
Percent
CWSs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 80 percent of community water systems in 2004.
Explanation - This measure was not met as a result of fewer state resources and budget constraints. Sanitary surveys are resource intensive
efforts, as state staffer contractors must physically visit the system to perform a sanitary survey.
(apj) Percent of identified Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal wells
and other high priority Class V
wells closed or permitted






80
Data
Avail
3/2011
Percent
Wells
Baseline - In FY 2005, 72 percent of Class V wells were closed or permitted
(apm) Percent of community water
systems that meet all applicable
health-based standards through
approaches that include effective
treatment and source water
protection
89
89
89.5
89
90
89.1
90
89.6
Percent
Systems
1188

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - In 2002, 91.8 percent of community water systems met all applicable health-based standards through approaches that included
effective treatment and source water protection.
Explanation - This measure was not met due to the burden placed on smaller size systems, particularly those currently challenged by the
revised arsenic standard, which has resulted in slightly reduced compliance at the system level.
(apo) Percent of deep injection
wells that are used to inject
industrial, municipal, or hazardous
wastes (Class I) that lose
mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 180
days thereby reducing the potential
to endanger underground sources
of drinking water






















































92








96








Percent
Wells







Baseline - This measure was recently developed in FY 2009 with no data collected prior to that time. Baseline statements are in the
process of being developed and will be available in FY 201 1.
(app) Percent of deep injection
wells that are used to enhance
oil/natural gas recovery or for the
injection of other (Class II) fluids
associated with oil and natural gas
production that have lost
mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 180
days thereby reducing the potential
to endanger underground sources
of drinking water


































































89










89










Percent
Wells









Baseline - This measure was recently developed in FY 2009 with no data collected prior to that time. Baseline statements are in the
process of being developed and will be available in FY 201 1.
1189

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(apq) Percent of deep injection
wells that are used for salt solution
mining (Class III) that lose
mechanical integrity and are
returned to compliance within 180
days thereby reducing the potential
to endanger underground sources
of drinking water
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
93
Actual
75

Unit
Percent
Wells
Baseline - This measure was recently developed in FY 2009 with no data collected prior to that time. Baseline statements are in the
process of being developed and will be available in FY 201 1.
Explanation - The universe is very small which makes it difficult to predict how many Class III wells will lose mechanical integrity in a
given year.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, community water systems will provide drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards during
97 percent of person months (i.e., all persons served by community water systems times 12 months).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(dw2) Percent of person months
during which community water
systems provide drinking water
that meets all applicable health-
based standards
FY 2007
Target





Actual





FY 2008
Target
95




Actual
97




FY 2009
Target
95




Actual
97.2




FY2010
Target
95




Actual
97.3





Unit
Percent
Months



Baseline - In 2005, 95.2 percent of the goal was achieved.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, 88 percent of the population in Indian Country served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards.
                                                           1190

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(E) 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
FY 2007
Target
87
Actual
87
FY 2008
Target
87
Actual
83
FY 2009
Target
87
Actual
81.2
FY2010
Target
87
Actual
87.2

Unit
Percent
Population
Baseline - 91.1 percent of the population in Indian Country was served by community water systems that received drinking water that met
all applicable health-based standards in 2002.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, minimize risk to public health through source water protection for 50 percent of community water systems and for the
associated 62  percent  of the  population served by  community water systems (i.e.,  "minimized risk"  achieved by substantial
implementation, as determined by the state, of actions in a source water protection strategy).

Strategic Target (6)
By 2015, in coordination with other federal agencies, reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe
drinking water.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.2: Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat
Fish and Shellfish Safe to Eat

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce the  percentage of women of childbearing age having mercury levels in blood above the level of concern to 4.6
percent.
                                                          1191

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(fsl) Percent of women of
childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of
concern
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
5.5
Actual
Data
Avail
3/2011
FY 2009
Target
5.2
Actual
Data
Avail
3/2011
FY2010
Target
5.1
Actual
Data
Avail
3/2011

Unit
Percent
Women
Baseline - 2002 baseline: 5.7 percent of women of childbearing age have mercury blood levels above levels of concern identified by the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.1.3: Water Safe for Swimming
Water Safe for Swimming

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, the number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal and Great
Lakes waters will be maintained at two, measured as a five-year average.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ssl) 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
FY 2007
Target






Actual






FY 2008
Target
2





Actual
0





FY 2009
Target
2





Actual
0





FY2010
Target
2





Actual
Data
Avail
3/2011




Unit
Outbreaks





Baseline - 2005 baseline: an annual average of two recreational contact waterborne disease outbreaks reported per year by the CDC over
the years 1998 to 2002; adjusted to remove outbreaks associated with waters other than coastal and Great Lakes waters and other than
natural surface waters (i.e., pools and water parks).
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, maintain the percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by state beach safety
programs are open and safe for swimming at 96 percent.
                                                          1192

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ss2) 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
Target
92.6
Actual
95.2
FY 2008
Target
92.6
Actual
95
FY 2009
Target
93
Actual
95
FY2010
Target
95
Actual
95

Unit
Percent
Days/Season
Baseline - 2005 baseline: Beaches open 96 percent of the 743,036 days of the beach season (i.e., beach season days are equal to 4,025
beaches multiplied by variable number of days of beach season at each beach).
OBJECTIVE: 2.2: PROTECT WATER QUALITY

Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
PMs Met
9
PMs Not Met
3
Data Available After February 7,
2011
6
Total PMs
18
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, attain water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in more than 3,250 water bodies identified in 2002 as not
attaining standards (cumulative).
                                                         1193

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(L) Number of waterbody
segments identified by states in
2002 as not attaining standards,
where water quality standards are
now fully attained (cumulative)
(ARRA measure)*
FY 2007
Target
1,166
Actual
1,409
FY 2008
Target
1,550
Actual
2,165
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results
2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals inc
FY 2009
Target
2,270
Actual
2,505
FY2010
Target
2,809
Actual
2,909

Unit
Segments
FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus
see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv. FY
;lude ARRA funding.
Baseline - In 2002, 0 percent 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 CWA.
(bpb) Fund utilization rate for the
CWSRF (ARRA measure)*
93.4
96.7
93.5
98
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results
2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals inc
94.5
98
92
100
Percent Rate
FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus
see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv. FY
;lude ARRA funding.
Baseline - In 2005, fund utilization rate for the CWSRF was 94.7 percent.
Explanation - When the target was originally set, EPA estimated that there was a possibility that ARRA could have had a negative impact
on the total level of assistance the CWSRFs could provide. In reality, the ability of the CWSRFs to provide ARRA funding as additional
subsidization in the form of principal forgiveness, grants and negative interest more than offset this. Demand for CWSRF funding was
much greater than in previous years given the possibility for communities to receive a portion (or all) of their project funding in the form
of additional subsidization. The increased demand included communities that have not previously come to the CWSRF for project
funding.
(bpc) Percent of all major
publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) that comply with their
permitted wastewater discharge
standards (ARRA measure)*
86
85.8
86
86
86
Data
Avail
3/2011
86
Data
Avail
3/2011
Percent
POTWs
1194

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA. The
ARRA (combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA results
2010 targets did not incorporate ARRA funds. However, FY 2010 actuals inc
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus
see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv. FY
;lude ARRA funding.
Baseline - In 2005, 3,670 (86.6 percent) publicly owned treatment works complied with their permitted wastewater discharge standards.
(bpf) Estimated annual reduction
in millions of pounds of
phosphorus from nonpoint sources
to waterbodies (Section 319
funded projects only)
4.5
7.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
Data
Avail
3/2011
Pounds
(million)
Baseline - Load reductions need to be estimated by applying models to data. EPA is estimating runoff into a waterbody from a land area.
Field data from many projects around the watershed must be gathered, and then run through the model to come up with an estimation of
load reductions.
(bpg) Estimated additional
reduction in million pounds of
nitrogen from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies (Section 319 funded
projects only)
8.5
19.1
8.5
11.3
8.5
9.1
8.5
Data
Avail
3/2011
Pounds
(million)
Baseline - Load reductions need to be estimated by applying models to data. EPA is estimating runoff into a waterbody from a land area.
Field data from many projects around the watershed must be gathered, and then run through the model to come up with an estimation of
load reductions.
(bph) Estimated additional
reduction in thousands of tons of
sediment from nonpoint sources to
waterbodies (Section 319 funded
projects only)
700,000
3,900,00
0
700,000
2,100,00
0
700,000
2,300,00
0
700,000
Data
Avail
3/2011
Tons
(thousand)
Baseline - Load reductions need to be estimated by applying models to data. EPA is estimating runoff into a waterbody from a land area.
Field data from many projects around the watershed must be gathered, and then run through the model to come up with an estimation of
load reductions.
1195

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(bpk) Number of TMDLs that are
established by States and approved
by EPA (state TMDL) on schedule
consistent with national policy
(cumulative). A TMDL is a
technical plan for reducing
pollutants in order to obtain water
quality standards. The terms
"approved" and "established" refer
to the completion and approval of
the TMDL itself.
FY 2007
Target
20,232
Actual
21,685
FY 2008
Target
28,527
Actual
30,658
FY 2009
Target
33,540
Actual
36,487
FY2010
Target
39,101
Actual
38,749

Unit
TMDLs
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,677 TMDLs in 2000.
Explanation - Due to state resource constraints and complicated Consent Decree TMDLs, EPA saw a significant decrease in the number of
TMDLs established by states. EPA anticipates that the number of state-established TMDLs may continue to be low (compared to
historical levels) for a few years.
(bpl) Percent of high priority state
NPDES permits that are issued in
theFY
95
112
95
120
95
147
95
142
Percent
Permits
Baseline - 95 percent (measure is annual, regions required to meet 95 percent of the universe).
Explanation - States have continued their efforts in coordination with EPA regions to maintain strong performance in the issuance of their
high priority permits.
When states establish their lists each year, they designate priority permits to be issued within the FY as well as for two successive years. If
a state is able to issue permits designated for a future FY ahead of schedule, it receive credit toward the current FY target, which may
result in issuing more permits than originally targeted.
(bpn) Percent of major dischargers
in significant noncompliance
(SNC) at any time during the FY
22.5
22.6
22.5
23.9
22.5
23.3
22.5
Data
Avail
3/2011
Percent
Dischargers
1196

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 22.5 percent of major dischargers in SNC in 2004.
(bpp) Percent of submissions of
new or revised water quality
standards from states and
territories that are approved by
EPA
85




85.6




87




92.5




85




93.2




85




90.9




Percent
Submissions



Baseline - Not applicable because the number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
(bps) Number of TMDLs that are
established or approved by EPA
(total TMDL) on a schedule
consistent with national policy
(cumulative). A TMDL is a
technical plan for reducing
pollutants in order to attain water
quality standards. The terms
"approved" and "established" refer
to the completion and approval of
the TMDL itself.
25,274










26,844










33,801










35,979










38,978










41,866










44,560










46,817










TMDLs










Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 2,843 TMDLs in 2000.
(bpt) Percent of waters assessed
using statistically valid surveys
54

54

65

65

65

65

82

82

Percent
Waters
Baseline - 2000 baseline is Slpercent.
(bpv) Percent of high priority EPA
and state NPDES permits
(including tribal) that are issued in
theFY
95



104



95



119



95



144



95



138



Percent
Permits


Baseline - 95 percent (Measure is annual. Regions are required to meet 95 percent of the universe).
1197

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Explanation - States and EPA have continued their efforts in coordination with EPA regions to maintain strong performance in the
issuance of their high priority permits. When states establish their lists each year, they designate priority permits to be issued within the
FY as well as for two successive years. If a state is able to issue permits designated for a future FY ahead of schedule, they receive credit
toward the current FY target, which may result in issuing more permits than originally targeted.
(bpw) Percent 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 sources
not considered in previous
standards
67








66.1








68








62.5








68








62.5








66








67.9








Percent
States and
Territories






Baseline - Not applicable because number of submissions changes on an annual basis.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, remove at least 9,200 of the specific causes of water body impairments identified by states in 2002 (cumulative).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(wq2) Remove the specific causes
of waterbody impairment
identified by states in 2002
(cumulative)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
4,607
Actual
6,723
FY 2009
Target
6,891
Actual
7,530
FY2010
Target
8,512
Actual
8,446

Unit
Causes
Baseline - In 2002, an estimate of 69,677 specific causes of water body impairments were identified by states.
Explanation - EPA missed its commitment because of a delay in reviewing Integrated Reports from states.
                                                          1198

-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, improve water quality conditions in 300 impaired watersheds nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(wq3) Improve water quality
conditions in impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed
approach (cumulative)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
40
Actual
60
FY 2009
Target
102
Actual
104
FY2010
Target
141
Actual
168

Unit
Watersheds
Baseline - In 2002, there were 10 watersheds improved of an estimated 4,800 impaired watersheds of focus having one or more water
bodies impaired.
Strategic Target (4)
Through 2014, ensure that the condition of the nation's wadeable streams does not degrade (i.e., there is no statistically significant
increase in the percent of streams rated "poor" and no statistically significant decrease in streams rated "good").

Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, improve water quality in Indian Country at 75 or more baseline monitoring stations in tribal waters (cumulative) (i.e., show
improvement in one or more of seven key parameters:  dissolved oxygen, potential hydrogen (pH), water temperature, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus (TP), pathogen indicators, and turbidity).

Strategic Target (6)
By 2015, in coordination with other federal partners, reduce by 50 percent the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic
sanitation (cumulative).

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.2.2: Improve Coastal and Ocean Water
Improve Coastal and Ocean Water

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, prevent water pollution and protect coastal  and ocean systems to at least maintain national  coastal aquatic ecosystem health
on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
                                                           1199

-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
Northeast region.

Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
Southeast region.

Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
West Coast region.

Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
Puerto Rico region.

Strategic Target (6)
By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
Hawaii region.

Strategic Target (7)
By 2014, at least maintain aquatic ecosystem health on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report in the
South Central Alaska region.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(Opb) Percent of serviceable rural
Alaska homes with access to
drinking water supply and
wastewater disposal
FY 2007
Target
92

Actual
92

FY 2008
Target
94

Actual
91

FY 2009
Target
96

Actual
91

FY2010
Target
98

Actual
Data
Avail
5/2011

Unit
Percent
Homes

Baseline - In 2003, 77 percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
                                                            1200

-------
Strategic Target (8)
By 2014, 95 percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites will have achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as
reflected in each site's management plan and measured through onsite monitoring programs).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(co5) 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
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
99
FY 2009
Target
98
Actual
99
FY2010
Target
98
Actual
90.1

Unit
Percent
Sites
Baseline - In 2005, 94 percent active dredged material ocean dumping sites had achieved environmentally acceptable conditions.
Explanation - Due to potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the ocean dumping sites in the Gulf of Mexico, the national
target was not met in FY 2010. Several regions reported that multiple ocean dumping sites in the Gulf of Mexico likely do not meet
environmentally acceptable conditions due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
OBJECTIVE: 2.3: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

By 2014, 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.
PMs Met
3
PMs Not Met
2
Data Available After February 7,
2011
2'
Total PMs
7
 This total includes two performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data.
                                                          1201

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.3.1: Drinking Water Research

Strategic Target (1)

By 2013, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
reducing human exposure to contaminants in drinking water and protecting human health.
                                                         1202

-------
     No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(134) Percentage of planned risk
management research products
delivered to support EPA's Office
of Water (OW), regions, water
utilities, and other key
stakeholders to manage public
health risk
FY 2007
Target







Actual







FY 2008
Target
100






Actual
100






FY 2009
Target
100






Actual
93






FY2010
Target
100






Actual
100







Unit
Percent






       Baseline - In 2008, the program began tracking outputs that measure progress towards completing the Drinking Water Research Program's
       long-term goal 2, which supports the OW in rule implementation, simultaneous compliance, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk
       management decisions. The Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) work under this goal also supports OW, regions, states,
       utilities, and key stakeholders in protecting sources of drinking water, managing water availability, improving water infrastructure
       sustainability, increasing water and energy use efficiency, and responding to short and long-term water resource impacts of environmental
       stressors such as climate change, population growth and land use changes.
(135) Percentage of planned
methodologies, data, and tools
delivered in support of EPA's OW
and other key stakeholders needs
for developing health risk
assessments under the SDWA
100
100
100
100
100
86
Percent
       Baseline - In 2008, the program began tracking outputs that measure progress towards completing the Drinking Water Research Program's
       long-term goal 1, which primarily supports OW in decisions relating to: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR),
       regulating/not regulating contaminants on the CCL, the six-year review, and the UIC program. ORD's work under this goal also supports
       regions and key stakeholders in meeting simultaneous compliance requirements while also aiding risk assessors in developing risk
       assessments that inform regulatory decisions.
       Explanation - 86 percent of the program's planned outputs were met in FY 2010. A peer-reviewed report on chemical indicators of fecal
       contamination in water sources and correlated negative health impacts was delayed. The delay occurred due to a need for extra time for
       the sampling phase of the project.
                                                                1203

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 2.3.2: Water Quality Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
protecting aquatic ecosystems and reducing human exposure to contaminants in recreational waters.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H66) Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of WQRP
long-term goal 1) delivered
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100
FY2010
Target
100
Actual
92

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal one and completed 100 percent of its
actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human
exposure to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
Explanation - 92 percent of the program's annual outputs were completed in FY 2010. One report was not completed due to the personnel
challenge.
(H68) Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of WQRP
long-term goal 2) delivered
100
100
100
100
100
86
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal two and completed 100 percent of its
actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human
exposure to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
(H70) Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of WQRP
long-term goal 3) delivered
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring its planned actions in support of long-term goal three and completed 100 percent of its
actions on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human
exposure to contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
                                                         1204

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H92) Percentage of WQRP
publications in high impact
journals

FY 2007
Target
No
Target
Establish
ed
Actual
Biennial



FY 2008
Target
14.7



Actual
13.8



FY 2009
Target
No
Target
Establish
ed
Actual
Biennial



FY2010
Target
15.7



Actual
Data Not
Collected



Unit
Percent



Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published
in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious
journals, as determined by "Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten-year
period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC).
Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally
compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
(H96) Percentage of WQRP
publications rated as highly cited
publications

No
Target
Establish
ed
Biennial



15.7



15.2



No
Target
Establish
ed
Biennial



16.7



Data Not
Collected


Percent



Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an
article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in
the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the publications
from the last ten-year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited"
metric provides information on the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science
community. As such, it is an instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally
compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
                                                         1205

-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
                   1206

-------
           GOAL 3  AT A GLANCE: LAND PRESERVATION  AND  RESTORATION
                                   FY 2010 Performance Measures

                      23 Not Met = 3 Data Available After 2/7/11 = 4* (Total Measures = 30)

           This total Includes 2 performance measures under Objective 3 tor which the Agency did not collect data.

                                                                     Goal 3 Performance Measures
How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
           (Dollars in Thousands)
                                                       20
         Healthy
       Communities
      and Ecosystems
        $ 1,952.626.3
           16.4%
            Land
         Preservation
        and Restoration

         $3.610,554.3 .
            30.4%
                Compliance and
                                              18
                  Stewardship
                                              16
                            CleanAir and Global
                              Climate Change    14

                               $1,205.805.4
                                  10.1%        12
                Clean and
                Safe Water

               $4,303.455.8
                  36.2%
                                                       10
        Source: FY 2010 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
                                                              Objective I
                                                                             Objective 2
                                                                                    Objective 3
                                Goal 3 FY 2010 Performance and Resources
                                Strategic Objective
                                                                           FY2010
                                                                          Obligations
                                                                         (in thousands)
 %of
Goal 3
Funds
  Objective 1—Preserve Land: Reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste genera-
  tion, increasing recycling, and ensuring proper management of waste and  petroleum
  products at facilities in ways that prevent releases.
                                                                          $261,372.2
 7%
  Objective 2—Restore Land: 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.
                                                                        $3,265,957.0
 91%
  Objective 3—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.
                                                                           $83,225.1
 2%
  Goal 3 Total
                                                                         $3,610,554.3
100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                                   1207

-------
Goal Purpose

To achieve its land preservation and restoration goal, EPA has developed a strategic vision for
managing waste, conserving and recovering the value of wastes, preventing releases, responding
to emergencies, and cleaning up contaminated land. Managing materials in nonsustainable ways
or having uncontrolled wastes can threaten ecosystems and cause acute illness or chronic disease.
Cleanup almost always costs more than prevention, and contaminated land can be a barrier to
bringing jobs and revitalization to a community.

EPA employs a hierarchy of approaches to protect the land, including reducing waste at its
source, recycling materials for their value, recovering energy from disposed waste, managing
waste effectively to prevent spills and releases of toxic materials, and cleaning up contaminated
properties. EPA works to ensure that hazardous and solid wastes are managed safely at industrial
facilities. Working with states, tribes, local governments, and responsible parties, EPA cleans up
uncontrolled or hazardous waste sites and returns land to productive use. Similarly, EPA works
to address risks associated with leaking USTs and wastes managed at industrial facilities.

The Agency collaborates with partners in innovative, nonregulatory  efforts to more effectively
utilize resources to minimize the amount and toxicity of waste generated and promotes recycling
to conserve resources and energy. Through its programs, which encourage Sustainable Materials
Management, EPA promotes opportunities for source  reduction and  converting secondary
materials to economically viable products, which conserve resources.

The Agency also works closely with  other government agencies to ensure that it is ready to
respond in the event of an emergency that could affect human health or the environment. It
strives to improve its preparedness and response capabilities, particularly in the area of homeland
security.

Finally, EPA conducts and applies scientific research to develop cost-effective methods for
managing materials and wastes, assessing risks, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites.

Contributing Programs

RCRA Waste Management, RCRA Corrective Action, RCRA Waste Minimization and
Recycling, Superfund Emergency Preparedness, Superfund Remedial, Superfund Enforcement,
Superfund Removal, Environmental Response Laboratory Network, Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse, Oil Spills, Leaking USTs, UST Prevention and Compliance, Land
Protection and Restoration Research, and Homeland Security.

EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs  are meeting intended
outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal
3, please  see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/fmancialperformancereports.htm, which
summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
                                          1208

-------
Objective 3.1: Preserve Land
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 3.1
                       (in thousands)
                    Objectives
Objective 1
$261,372.20
   7%
                  Goal 3 Total Obligations = $3.610,554.3
                                                                 FY 2010 Performance
                                                                Measures: Objective 3.1

                                                                       Met =5
                                                                     Not Met = 0
                                                                  Data Available After
                                                                  February?, 2011 = 2
                                                                      (Total = 7)
EPA seeks to reduce adverse effects to land by reducing waste generation, increasing recycling,
and ensuring proper management of wastes and petroleum products at facilities in ways that
prevent releases.

Engaging Communities in Cleanup, Emergency Response, and Management of Hazardous
Substances

In FY 2010, the Agency released the Community Engagement Initiative (CEI) Implementation
Plan, which lays out 16 actions and activities that EPA will undertake in the next few years.
Greater community involvement will strengthen Agency programs by consistently and
effectively engaging local communities and stakeholders in decision-making processes that
produce outcomes that are protective and support healthy and sustainable communities. This
initiative provides an opportunity for EPA to refocus and renew its vision for community
engagement, build on existing good practices, and apply them consistently in EPA processes. For
additional information,  see: www.epa.gov/oswer/engagementinitiative/index.htm.

Preventing Coal Ash Releases

The failure of an ash disposal cell at the TVA's Kingston plant in December 2008 highlighted
the issue of CCR impoundment stability. In response, EPA has been assessing the stability of
impoundments and similar management units that contain wet-handled CCRs.  EPA is continuing
to conduct assessments and posting final reports on the structural integrity of impoundments,
including recommendations to ensure continued stability. EPA is following up with facilities to
ensure that the recommendations are implemented. In FY 2010, the Agency also co-proposed
two alternative regulations governing the disposal of CCRs, and conducted extensive public
outreach on these proposals.
                                          1209

-------
Recycling and Waste Reduction

Although FY 2010 data, and in some cases 2009 data, will not be available until 2011, EPA is on
track for meeting its recycling and waste reduction goals through the success of partnership
programs such as the Coal Combustion Partnership Program, WasteWise, and Plug-In To
eCycling. The Agency expects to meet its FY 2010 municipal solid waste reduction goal of
diverting 20.5 billion Ib per year from disposal. EPA initiated several activities to increase the
volume of waste diverted, including reaching out to local governments, organizations, and
businesses; creating new recycling and reuse toolkits; and demonstrating the potential energy
savings and GHG reduction benefits of recycling municipal solid waste and industrial materials.
For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships.

The Agency's WasteWise Program focuses on partnerships with businesses; institutions such as
universities and hospitals; nonprofit organizations; and state, local, and tribal governments to set
and achieve waste reduction goals. In FY 2010, the number of WasteWise members increased to
3,024 from 2,484 in FY 2009, an increase of 21.7  percent.

EPA's Plug-In To eCycling program partnered with electronics manufacturers, retailers, and
service providers to improve public awareness and expand infrastructure for collection and
responsible recycling of electronics. In 2009 (the latest data available), Plug-In partners collected
160 million Ib of consumer electronics, including  computers, televisions, and cell phones, for
recycling. As a result of these electronics recycling efforts, partners helped to prevent the release
of GHGs equal to the annual emissions from approximately 36,000 cars.

Hazardous Waste Control

While reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated is an Agency priority, EPA's hazardous
waste program also works to ensure that any hazardous waste that is  created is managed under
protective controls. In FY 2010, EPA established and updated waste  management controls at
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regulated by the RCRA. For additional information,
see: www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/rcra.html.

EPA's strategy for preventing releases of hazardous waste relies on issuing and maintaining
facility permits that mandate approved controls for each hazardous waste facility site. During FY
2010, EPA and state partners issued 140 initial approved controls and updated controls,
exceeding the FY 2010 annual target of 100. In total, 97.4 percent of the current 2,446 facilities
are now under approved controls. Once a facility is permitted, permits must be regularly updated
and maintained. The Agency expects a higher demand in the future for permit renewals because
facilities that were permitted 10 or more years ago have outdated controls; these permits must be
renewed to ensure that the waste continues to be handled properly.

Permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that cease operations could pose threats if not
closed, cleaned up, and monitored properly in accordance with EPA  standards. A critical
component of EPA's hazardous waste program is  ensuring future protection for communities and
the environment around these facilities. Such protection includes ensuring that these facilities
have updated financial assurance to provide funds to close and maintain the sites.
                                          1210

-------
Hazardous waste facilities that do not have approved controls often present complex
management issues. Developing approved controls for large federal facilities, particularly those
with nontraditional treatment units, is difficult and requires detailed evaluation of technical
information and risks, as well as methods for addressing public concerns.

Many of the 140 hazardous waste facilities that came under initial approved controls and updated
controls in FY 2010 presented types of units that were relatively difficult to address. Many of the
facilities remaining to be permitted either have units that are either difficult to permit or have
difficulty meeting the "under control criteria" because of the large number of units they include.

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

Except in Indian country,5 the UST program is implemented by states. To prevent releases from
USTs, EPA and its state and tribal partners ensure that UST systems are in significant
operational compliance (SOC) with release detection and release prevention equipment
requirements, and that the equipment is used, functioning, and properly maintained. EPA's FY
2010 target for operational compliance is 65.5 percent, and future targets will each represent a
0.5 percent increase over the previous year's target. For FY 2010, EPA and its partners achieved
a SOC rate of 68.3 percent.  For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/OUST.

EPA and its partners made progress in meeting the Energy Policy Act
(www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm) requirement to inspect all UST facilities at least once
every three years, inspecting 108,953 facilities in FY 2010. The Agency expects that overtime
this increased frequency of inspections will result in improved rates of facility compliance and
fewer releases. Through its  compliance activities, EPA and its partners have succeeded in
meeting the Agency's goal of limiting  the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities. In FY
2010 EPA set a goal  of reducing the number of confirmed releases from USTs to fewer than
9,000. EPA reported far fewer actual confirmed releases in FY 2010, down to 6,328 releases.
 Use of the terms "Indian Country," "Indian lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" in this report is not intended to provide any
legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is their use intended to expand or restrict the scope of any such
programs.

                                           1211

-------
Objective 3.2: Restore Land
                FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 3.2
                        (in thousands)
                      Objectives
Objective 1
                   Goal 3 Total Obligations = $3,610,554.3
                                                                   FY 2010 Performance
                                                                  Measures: Objective 3.2

                                                                        Met = 16
                                                                       Not Met = 3
                                                                    Data Available After
                                                                    February?, 2011 = 0
                                                                       (Total = 19)
EPA's cleanup programs include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) program,6 commonly known as Superfund; the RCRA Corrective
Action Program,7 the TSCA) Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Cleanup Program,8 and the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program.9 In FY 2010, these programs made
significant progress toward their goal of controlling risks to human health and the environment at
contaminated properties and making land available for reuse through cleanup, stabilization, or
other actions.

EPA Focuses  on Managing Projects to Completion

In FY 2010, EPA initiated a three-year strategy to identify and implement improvements to the
Agency's land cleanup programs to accelerate cleanups, address a greater number of
contaminated sites, and put these sites back into productive use while protecting human health
and the environment. The ICI has the following five objectives:  Starting Cleanups focuses on
site identification and assessment activities in the early stages of the cleanup continuum;
Advancing Cleanups emphasizes coordination during cleanup activities, including enforcement
strategies; Completing Cleanups focuses on pilot projects aimed at accelerating cleanup,
reporting to the public, and leveraging revitalization efforts as cleanups are completed;
Evaluating Performance Metrics and the Effectiveness of the ICI Activities focuses  on
performance measurement; and Communicating the Progress focuses on communicating the
benefits of our cleanup programs.
6 www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cercla.html
7 www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction
8 www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html
9 www.epa.gov/oust
                                           1212

-------
Strong project management and managing projects to completion are overarching principles for
this initiative. With its enhanced focus on project management, the Agency will be able to
further demonstrate progress and optimize the work within the various stages of the cleanup
pipeline. Consistent with this approach, in FY 2011, EPA will report a new performance
measure, Remedial Action Project Completions, which will track the progress of cleanup activity
at the sites. In addition, under this initiative, the Agency has developed a framework to
implement multipurpose grants in the Brownfields Program and, in partnership with 14 states,
completed an in-depth analysis of the leaking UST backlog. EPA is exploring policy changes
and/or efficiencies to speed the delivery of federal brownfields funds to communities and tribes;
embarking on a Superfund site assessment initiative to improve the effectiveness of the site
assessment process; considering several Superfund project management pilot projects to improve
efficiencies; identifying best practices related to the leveraging of our Brownfields and Removal
Programs  to improve and increase  site cleanups; and pursuing backlog reduction strategies to
reduce the number of open cleanups at leaking UST sites.

Pursuing  Financial Responsibility Under CERCLA

CERCLA directs EPA to establish financial responsibility requirements for classes of facilities
"consistent with the degree and duration of risks associated with the production, transportation,
treatment, storage or  disposal of hazardous substances." In July 2009, the Agency published a
Federal Register notice identifying classes within the hard rock mining industry for which EPA
will first develop financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section  108(b). The July
notice also committed EPA to evaluate additional classes for possible financial responsibility
requirements. In January 2010, the Agency published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) identifying additional classes of facilities to study for possible regulation: 1) chemical
manufacturing;  2) petroleum and coal products manufacturing; and 3) electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution. EPA is working to assess the effects of possible financial
responsibility regulations for hard rock mines on those already in force in the states and in other
federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. The Agency
expects to first assess the applicability of the CERCLA provision to the hard rock mining
industry classes and publish proposed rules, as appropriate, for the selected classes in 2012.

Superfund Sites

At the end of FY 2010, 1,627 sites were listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Of these,
EPA has completed construction of the final remedy at 1,098 sites and has brought 475 of those
sites into "sitewide ready for anticipated use." Designs are being developed, assessments are
underway, or construction is ongoing at the remaining sites that have not yet completed
construction. Contributing to these totals, the  program:

   •   Determined that 66 Superfund sites were ready for anticipated use, meeting the FY 2010
       target of 65. This "sitewide ready for anticipated use" performance measure tracks
       construction-complete sites on the NPL10 at which: 1) human exposure is under control,
       2)  all cleanup goals to reduce unacceptable risk that could affect current  and reasonably

10 www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl
                                          1213

-------
       anticipated future land uses of the site have been achieved, and 3) all institutional
       controls have been implemented.

   •   Completed construction of remedies at 18 Superfund sites.

   •   Controlled all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination for
       current land and/or ground water use conditions at a net total of 18 additional Superfund
       human exposure sites, exceeding the target of 10 sites.

   •   Controlled ground water migration at a net total of 18 sites, exceeding the target of 15
       sites.

   •   Made 365 final site assessment decisions under Superfund, achieving the target of 330.

EPA's Superfund Program also engages in a significant amount of work to screen potential sites
that might require further CERCLA action. This pre-NPL work accounts for a significant amount
of FY 2010 activity in addition to the achievements represented under the previously mentioned
goals. The program's new measure for FY 2011—total site assessments completed—will capture
data to demonstrate these efforts more fully.

Superfund Construction Completions

The Superfund cleanup work EPA is doing today generally is more difficult, more technically
demanding, and consumes considerable resources at fewer sites than in the past. In addition, the
number of site candidates available for completion in any given year has dropped significantly as
the number of sites completed has reached more than 67 percent of the sites listed on the NPL.
Further, site managers are often required to adjust site construction schedules due to unexpected
issues that are typical of construction at hazardous waste sites (e.g., inclement weather,
equipment availability, and unanticipated increases in the volume of waste to be addressed). As a
result of these challenges, the Superfund program did not meet its FY 2010 target for
construction completion. There have been delays at achieving construction completion at some
federal facility NPL  sites because of the additional work related to munitions. EPA is
coordinating with DOD to prioritize and sequence the cleanup of all munitions response sites to
correspond with other Superfund cleanup activity at the site to ensure that sites that have
completed the recommended remedy activities can simultaneously, or within short order,
complete munitions cleanup activity so that site-wide construction complete can be achieved
more efficiently.

"Enforcement First" Program

EPA's Superfund Enforcement Program continues to use the most appropriate enforcement or
compliance tools to address the most significant problems and to achieve the best outcomes. The
Superfund Enforcement Program also strives to ensure fairness, reduce transaction costs, and
promote economic development. For example, to ensure that responsible parties can meet their
cleanup obligations,  EPA has developed a national strategy to assess companies' compliance
with federal financial assurance requirements.
                                          1214

-------
EPA's Superfund enforcement goals for FY 2010 are: 1) reach a settlement or take an
enforcement action by the start of remedial action at 95 percent of nonfederal Superfund sites
that have viable, liable parties; and 2) 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 and report value
of costs recovered.

In FY 2010, cost recovery was addressed at 360 NPL and non-NPL sites, of which 185 had total
costs  greater than or equal to $200,000; of those, 83 had potential SOL concerns. In addition,
EPA secured private party commitments for cleanup and cost recovery and billed private parties
for oversight for amounts that exceeded $1.6 billion. For additional information, see:
www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/index.html.

                          FY 2010 Enforcement & Compliance Annual Results
                          Private Party Commitments for Superfund Site Study
                                & Cleanup, Oversight & Cost Recovery
                                  FY 2006 - FY 2010 - ($ Millions)
              FY2006         FY2007          FY 2008         FY 2009          FY2010
                                           Data Source: Site Study & Cleanup and Cost Recovery:
      H Site Study & Cleanup  • Oversight  D Cost Recovery
RCRA Corrective Action
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation &
Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Oversight; Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS)
In FY 2010, the Agency's work on the RCRA corrective action baseline of 3,747 facilities
resulted in exceeding its annual goals, with actual achievements of 72 percent of facilities with
current human exposures under control; 63 percent of facilities with migration of contaminated
ground water under control; and 37 percent of facilities with final remedies constructed. The
RCRA Corrective Action Program largely owes its FY 2010 success to the dedicated focus of
EPA and state environmental agencies on priority facilities and moving all corrective action
facilities toward protective final cleanups.

In FY 2010 these efforts again ensured that at very difficult sites (i.e., sites that are highly
contaminated with a range of toxic and complex contaminants, requiring innovative and
                                            1215

-------
changing technological solutions), human exposures were reduced or eliminated, contaminated
ground water was controlled, and final long-term protective remedies were constructed and
implemented.

EPA, states, and the regulated community continue to face a staggering long-term workload to
return all 3,747 RCRA sites to productive reuse and ensure operating facilities are clean and
protective. This work also includes ensuring that existing and new remedies remain protective
for the lifetime of the facility through long-term stewardship initiatives.

In the near term, however, the Agency and its state partners are focusing their efforts on the
ambitious F Y 2020 goal of completing remedy construction at 95 percent of all 2020 baseline
facilities. This goal, along with completing the environmental indicators to reduce and eliminate
exposures, will require a significant infusion of resources to achieve these results by FY 2020 in
light of the current economic situation most states are facing.

Leaking USTs

The LUST Program promotes timely and protective cleanups of releases from federally regulated
USTs containing petroleum by enhancing state, local, and tribal remediation efforts and
enforcement and response capability. EPA continues  to focus on increasing the efficiency of
leaking UST cleanups nationwide. In FY 2010, EPA's state and tribal partners completed 11,591
cleanups of leaking USTs (including 62 cleanups in Indian Country).11 For additional
information, see: www. epa. gov/oust/ltffacts .htm.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

EPA's Emergency Response and Removal Program is founded on the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, commonly called the National Contingency
Plan. EPA's mission is to respond to immediate threats from releases of hazardous substances
and oil, and its first priority is to eliminate any danger to the public. The program has conducted
more than 10,000 removals  since 1980. In FY 2010, the Emergency Response  and Removal
Program exceeded both of its targets by completing 199 Superfund-lead removals and 192
voluntary emergency removals.

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

In FY 2010, the United States experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in its history,
the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA immediately began
monitoring the area to determine potential public health and environmental concerns—primarily air
quality concerns from the spill and controlled burn emissions, waste management plans, and water
quality for dispersant level monitoring—and preparing for the immediate and long-term
environmental fallout from the spill.
11 Use of the terms "Indian Country," "Indian lands," "tribal waters," and "tribal areas" within this report is not intended to
provide any legal guidance on the scope of any program being described, nor is their use intended to expand or restrict the scope
of any such programs.
                                          1216

-------
As one of many agencies supporting the USCG-led federal response, EPA vice-chaired the
National Response Team for the response, which provided round the clock coordination among the
involved federal agencies. Among its efforts, EPA:

   •   Collected and evaluated samples along the shoreline and beyond for chemicals related to oil
       and dispersants in the air, water, sediment, and waste. EPA's monitoring and sampling
       activities provided the USCG, other federal agencies,  states, and local governments with
       data to inform decisions about seafood safety, habitat  impacts, and beach closure issues.

   •   Supported and advised USCG efforts to clean the reclaimed oil and waste from the
       shoreline.

   •   Worked with the NO A A to design a monitoring strategy for sub sea dispersant use,
       evaluated the toxicity of dispersants, and provided oversight on the use of dispersants.

BP, at the request of the USCG and in coordination with EPA, developed waste management plans
to support proper waste classification, handling, staging, storage, manifesting, transportation and
disposal/recycling of the waste generated from spill cleanup activities. The USCG, in consultation
with EPA and the states, extensively reviewed and commented on these draft waste management
plans  prior  to formal approval by the USCG, to ensure the proper management  of the wastes
generated from the oil spill. The waste management plans and implementing directives were
revised several times during the course of the spill response to address comments from EPA and the
states and to reflect changing conditions (e.g., addition of new staging areas and landfills, quantity
and types of waste being generated, etc). This resulted in the generation of numerous submissions
and reports that required EPA review and follow-up to ensure BP's compliance with the waste
management plans and directives.

EPA mobilized its Headquarters and Regional Emergency Operations Center and established a
communications network to provide timely information to the public. The Agency's site
(www.epa.gov/BPspill) includes air, water, and sediment quality monitoring updates, questions and
answers on pertinent issues, and links to additional response sites. EPA also used social media,
such as Facebook and Twitter, to provide a continuous flow of information from major
announcements to notices of local developments and meetings.

In September 2010, the Administration outlined an aggressive Gulf Coast ecosystem restoration
plan which established a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Task Force to be led by EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson. The task force, an intergovernmental advisory body, is charged with coordinating
restoration  programs and projects in the Gulf region. It will focus on efforts to create more resilient
and healthy Gulf Coast ecosystems, while also encouraging support for economic recovery and
long-term health issues. As part of the restoration, EPA will work with federal,  state, and local
partners and stakeholders to develop and implement science-based restoration efforts.
                                          1217

-------
Enbridge Oil Spill in Marshall, Michigan
EPA also served as the lead federal agency on the response to the Enbridge oil spill in FY 2010.
This pipeline break in Marshall, Michigan released more than 800,000 gallons of crude oil into
the Kalamazoo River. EPA established 25 containment locations, deploying, at the height of the
response, over 2,500 personnel and over 170,000 linear feet of boom, collecting more than 11.5
million gallons of oil/water. Through this spill response the Agency greatly reduced the potential
for significant harm to human health and the environment including preventing crude oil from
reaching Lake Michigan. In addition to the Enbridge Marshall oil spill, the Agency also
responded to the Hammond BP (Indiana) and Enbridge Romeoville Spill (Illinois)  in the
Midwest, all within two months while continuing to support the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response effort.

Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: LUST Cleanups in Indian  Country
          Cleanups Yet To Be Completed In Indian Country
    500 n
   400-
    300-
    200-
    100-
          2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Background-Discussion: Over the past seven years, the LUST cleanup backlog in Indian
Country has declined by about 25 percent. This success is due partly to focused efforts by EPA
and tribes to complete the remaining cleanups necessary at older sites and to increase use of the
national and regional Indian Country cleanup contracts. These contracts help evaluate LUST
Trust Fund eligible sites, design corrective action plans,  and remediate contaminated sites.
However, completing cleanups and reducing the backlog of sites in Indian Country is likely to
                                         1218

-------
become more difficult as a result of two factors: 1) several EPA Regions are in the process of
conducting comprehensive surveys to identify abandoned tanks, so the backlog may increase as
new releases are discovered, and 2) EPA is addressing more sites that require complex cleanups,
which take more time to complete.

Reference: Data from Office of Underground Storage Tanks End-of-Year Activity Reports to
Regional Division Directors.
www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca_08_34.pdf: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca_07_34.pdf:
www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca  06 34.pdf: www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca 05  34.pdf:
www.epa.gov/oust/cat/ca  043 4.pdf:
                                          1219

-------
Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 3.3
                        (in thousands)
                 Objectives
                 $83,225.10
                    2%
                                       Objective 1
                     Goal 3 Total Obligations = $3,610,554.3
   FY 2010 Performance
  Measures: Objective 3.3

         Met = 2
       Not Met = 0
    Data Available After
    February?, 2011 = 21
        (Total = 4)

1 This total includes 2 performance
measures for which the Agency did
not collect data.
EPA's research program supports a sound scientific foundation for decisions to preserve and
restore the land.

Testing the Toxicity of Dispersants from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

While the USCG led the federal response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
        19                                                                            _^
Mexico,   EPA provided support through its scientific and technical expertise. In FY 2010, EPA
scientists responded to the spill by:  1) testing the toxicity of the dispersants used by BP; 2)
quantifying the biodegradability of South Louisiana Crude oil, dispersants, and dispersed oil; 3)
measuring chlorinated  dioxins and furans in air emissions from in-situ controlled burning; 4)
evaluating alternative response technologies submitted by the public to determine suitability for
deployment; and 5) providing technical support and expertise on monitoring of sampling
approaches. In June and August 2010, EPA released data that showed that all eight dispersant
products tested have approximately the same toxicity, and all fall into the "practically nontoxic"
or "slightly toxic" category. Agency scientists also found that none of the eight dispersants
displayed endocrine disrupting activity of biological significance. Most importantly, ORD
scientists showed that the combination of oil and the dispersant used by BP was no more toxic to
aquatic life than the oil alone. The externally peer reviewed results are publicly available on
EPA's website at: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/dispersants-testing.html.

The challenges faced during the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill highlighted the need
for better mechanisms  for preventing and responding to oil spills. To improve future responses,
EPA will be issuing grants to universities in FY 2011 to develop a better understanding of the
impacts of oil spills and dispersant application on the environment, assess the toxicity of oil spill
response products, and develop innovative technologies to mitigate the impact of oil spills. EPA
 ' www.restorethegulf.gov
                                            1220

-------
is also developing a long term oil spill research strategy that takes a more holistic approach to
studying the effects and effectiveness of oil spill response options.

Support for Coal Combustion Residue Regulations

Residuals from coal combustion are a byproduct of electricity generation and are a high-volume
waste stream (136 million tons in 2008). Some of the waste stream is diverted for beneficial uses,
but more than half is disposed of in surface impoundments and landfills. EPA researchers have
been studying the environmental leaching potential of these coal residuals in disposal settings.
Waste properties depend on several factors, including the coal source, boiler operations, air
pollution control devices, as well as the environmental conditions around use or disposal. Waste
composition and leaching also change as air pollution regulations become stricter and trap more
constituents in the residual streams. EPA research has informed the Agency's  proposed
rulemaking on CCR13 and contributes toward safely managing and using coal  residues. An inter-
laboratory comparison for a new leaching test method for the Leaching Environmental
Assessment Framework is currently underway. EPA will continue research the effects of
leaching from the CCRs found in wallboard and used in soil amendments.

EPA Research Assists States in Monitoring USTs

Although Congress banned lead in gasoline in the 1990s, lead levels and their associated
additives still persist in the environment. Two such additives, ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,
2-dichloroethane (1, 2-DCA)  are probable human carcinogens. While there are established
maximum contamination levels for EDB and  1, 2-DCA, many of the state agencies that
implement EPA's UST program do not routinely sample for EDB and DC A at legacy UST sites.
Concerned that EDB and 1, 2-DCA from these legacy USTs might continue to contaminate
ground water, EPA scientists  surveyed the concentrations of these carcinogens at UST sites. The
results indicated that hazards  from EDB and 1, 2-DCA remain at an unknown number of legacy
spills  of leaded gasoline. Based on this assessment, EPA is recommending that state agencies
monitor for EDB and 1, 2-DCA at UST sites where leaded motor fuels were stored.
13 Docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640 at http://www.regulations.gov.
                                          1221

-------
                                GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

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

OBJECTIVE: 3.1: PRESERVE LAND

By 2014, 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.
PMs Met
5
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
2
Total PMs
7
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.1: Waste Generation and Recycling
Waste Generation and Recycling

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, increase the amount of municipal solid waste reduced, reused, or recycled by 130 billion Ib.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MW9) Billions of pounds of
municipal solid waste reduced,
reused, or recycled
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target
19.5
Actual
23.7
FY2010
Target
20.5
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Billion
Pounds
Baseline - The municipal solid waste measure was first implemented in FY 2009. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, increase the use of coal combustion ash to 56 percent from 40 percent in 2007.
                                                         1222

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MW2) Increase in percentage of
coal combustion ash that is used
instead of disposed
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
1.8
Actual
1.8
FY 2009
Target
1.8
Actual
-6
FY2010
Target
1.4
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Percentage
Increase
Baseline - In 2007, 42.7 percent of coal combustion ash was used rather than landfilled. There is a one-year data lag in reporting results.
Explanation: The decrease in FY 2009 was not unexpected and is largely attributed to the decline in U.S. concrete demand during the
economic downturn of 2009.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, increase by 118 the number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan compared to FY 2008.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MW8) Number of tribes covered
by an integrated solid waste
management plan
FY 2007
Target
27
Actual
28
FY 2008
Target
26
Actual
35
FY 2009
Target
16
Actual
31
FY2010
Target
23
Actual
23

Unit
Tribes
Baseline - The baseline is established as zero since any waste management plans developed before 2007 were reassessed based on
guidelines issued that year. No tribes were covered by an integrated solid waste management plan in 2006.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, close, clean up, or upgrade 138 open dumps in Indian Country and on other tribal lands compared to FY 2008.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(MW5) Number of closed, cleaned
up, or upgraded open dumps in
Indian Country or on other tribal
lands
FY 2007
Target
30



Actual
107



FY 2008
Target
30



Actual
166



FY 2009
Target
27



Actual
129



FY2010
Target
22



Actual
141




Unit
Open
Dumps


Baseline - The baseline is established as zero, as this measure concerns open dumps which are addressed starting in FY 2007.
                                                        1223

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Explanation - Leveraged available EPA resources and tribal funds to greatly accelerate the expected pace of open dumps cleanups.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.1.2: Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products
Hazardous Waste and Petroleum Products

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, prevent releases at 525 hazardous waste management facilities with initial approved controls or updated controls; this results
in the protection of an estimated 3 million people living within a mile of all  facilities with controls. (Baseline: An estimated 820
facilities will require these controls out of the universe of 2,450 with about 10,000 process units. The goal of 600 represents 60 percent
of the facilities needing controls).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(FtWO) Number of hazardous
waste facilities with new or
updated controls
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
115
FY2010
Target
100
Actual
140

Unit
Facilities
Baseline - There are an estimated 820 facilities that will require initial approved or updated controls out of the universe of 2,467 facilities.
Explanation - Regional offices and their state counterparts were able to maintain a high permit renewal rate, which accounts for over half
of the reported results.
Strategic Target (2)
Each year through 2014, increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in SOC with both release detection and release prevention
requirements by 0.5 percent over the previous year's target. This means an increase of facilities in SOC from  65 percent in 2009 to
67.5 percent in 2014.
                                                            1224

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ST6) Increase the percentage of
UST facilities that are in SOC with
both release detection and release
prevention requirements by 0.5
percent over the previous year's
target
FY 2007
Target




Actual




FY 2008
Target
68



Actual
66



FY 2009
Target
65



Actual
66.4



FY2010
Target
65.5



Actual
68.6




Unit
Percent



Baseline - In FY 2008, the strategic target was modified. The target for 2009 was established at 65 percent with a 0.5 percent increase
each year thereafter.
Strategic Target (3)
Each year through 2014, minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ST1) Minimize the number of
confirmed releases at UST
facilities to 9,000 or fewer each
year
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
<10,000
Actual
7,364
FY 2009
Target
<9,000
Actual
7,168
FY2010
Target
<9,000
Actual
6,328

Unit
UST
Releases
Baseline - Between FY 1999 and FY 2009, confirmed UST releases averaged 10,630 and the annual number of confirmed releases in FY
2009 was 7,168.
Explanation - Between FY 2001 and FY2 009, confirmed UST releases averaged 8,580, and the annual number of confirmed releases in
FY 2010 was 6,328. There are no regional targets.
OBJECTIVE: 3.2: RESTORE LAND

By 2014, 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.
                                                          1225

-------
PMs Met
16
PMs Not Met
3
Data Available After February 7,
2011
0
Total PMs
19
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.1: Chemical Release Preparedness and Response
Chemical Release Preparedness and Response

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, achieve  and maintain at least 75 percent of the maximum score on the Core National Approach to Response (NAR)
evaluation criteria.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(Cl) Score on annual Core NAR
FY 2007
Target

Baseline - In FY 2009, the average Core
responding to emergencies.
Actual

NAR Score
FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
55
Actual
87.9

Unit
Percent
was 84.3 percent for EPA headquarters, regions, and special teams prepared for
Explanation - The FY 2010 target is based on a national evaluation that now includes headquarters and special teams as well as the
regions. The FY 2009 measure only included the regions and the FY 2010 target represented EPA's best estimate for the broader first year
score. EPA headquarters score for the first year exceeded expectations and accounted for much of the difference between the target and
the actual results.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, complete an additional 850 Superfund-lead hazardous substance removal actions.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(132) Superfund-lead removal
actions completed annually
FY 2007
Target
195
Actual
200
FY 2008
Target
195
Actual
215
FY 2009
Target
195
Actual
214
FY2010
Target
170
Actual
199

Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 157 Superfund-lead removal actions completed, for a total of approximately 5,300 completions since
1980.
                                                        1226

-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, oversee an additional 850 potential responsible party (PRP) removal completions, including voluntary, administrative orders
on consent (AOC), and unilateral administrative order (UAO) actions.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(135) PRP removal completions
(including voluntary, AOC, and
UAO actions) overseen by EPA
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
170
Actual
192

Unit
Removals
Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 97 voluntary removal actions completed.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, reduce by 15 percent the number of gallons spilled at Facility Response Plan (FRP) facilities based on the average of 1.73
million gallons spilled from 2004 to 2008.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(337) Percent of all FRP inspected
facilities found to be non-
compliant which are brought into
compliance
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
15
Actual
48

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2009, 16 percent of all FRP facilities found to be non-compliant were brought into compliance.
Explanation - Since the establishment of this measure, there has been a change of focus in the program to bring facilities into compliance.
Due to this shift, regions are inspecting facilities that are high-risk.
(3 3 8) Percent of all SPCC
inspected facilities found to be
non-compliant which are brought
into compliance






15
36
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2009, 59 percent of all SPPC facilities found to be non-compliant were brought into compliance.
                                                           1227

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Explanation - Since the establishment of this measure, there has been a change of focus in the program to bring facilities into compliance.
Due to this shift, regions are inspecting facilities that are high-risk.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.2: Contaminated Land
Contaminated Land

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, make final  assessment decisions at 42,187 of 45,300 potentially hazardous waste sites evaluated by EPA to help resolve
community concerns  on whether these sites require long-term cleanup to protect public health and  the environment and to help
determine if they can be remediated by  a responsible party through a state or federal cleanup program and cleared for possible
redevelopment.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(121) Superfund final site
assessment decisions completed
FY 2007
Target
350
Actual
395
FY 2008
Target
400
Actual
415
FY 2009
Target
400
Actual
400
FY2010
Target
330
Actual
365

Unit
Assessments
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, a cumulative total of 39,288 final site assessment decisions had been completed since the program's
inception.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014,  control  all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination  for current land and/or groundwater use
conditions at 1,369 Superfund NPL sites.
                                                          1228

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(151) Number of Superfund sites
with human exposures under
control (ARRA measure)*
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
8
FY 2008
Target
10
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA
(combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA res
Actual
24
FY 2009
Target
10
Actual
11
FY2010
Target
10
Actual
18

Unit
Sites
. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA
>ults see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv.


Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had controlled human exposures at 82 percent (1,269) of 1554 final and deleted NPL sites in
the environmental indicator reporting universe in that year.
Explanation - The human exposure measure, unlike most others, report "net" accomplishments and are very difficult to target. In FY 2010,
several sites in the Insufficient Data category completed five-year reviews that showed the sites were under control, which affected the FY
2010 accomplishment positively. As of the end of FY 2010, 1,338 sites out of a universe of 1,583 sites (85 percent) were under control.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, increase to 78 percent the number of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins controlled.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(CA1) Cumulative percentage of
RCRA facilities with human
exposures to toxins under control
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
69
Actual
72

Unit
Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2008, potential human exposures to toxins were controlled at 58 percent of 3,746 facilities.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, control the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies, natural processes,  or other appropriate
actions at 1,061 Superfund NPL sites.
                                                           1229

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(152) Superfund sites with
contaminated groundwater
migration under control.
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
19
FY 2008
Target
15
Actual
20
FY 2009
Target
15
Actual
16
FY2010
Target
15
Actual
18

Unit
Sites
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had controlled groundwater migration at 69 percent (958) of 1,392 groundwater sites in that
year.
Explanation - The groundwater measure, unlike most others, report "net" accomplishments and are very difficult to target. In FY 2010,
several sites in the Insufficient Data category completed five-year reviews that showed the sites were under control, which affected the FY
2010 accomplishment positively.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, increase to 68 percent the number of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(CA2) Cumulative percentage of
RCRA facilities with migration of
contaminated groundwater under
control
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
61
Actual
63

Unit
Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2008, migration of contaminated groundwater was controlled at 50 percent of 3,746 facilities.
Strategic Target (6)
By 2014, complete construction of remedies at 1,202 Superfund NPL sites.
                                                          1230

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(141) Annual number of
Superfund sites with remedy
construction completed.(ARRA
measure)*
FY 2007
Target
24
Actual
24
FY 2008
Target
30
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA
(combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA res
result for this measure also includes all Federal Facility Superfun
Actual
30
FY 2009
Target
20
Actual
20
FY2010
Target
22
Actual
18

Unit
Sites
. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA
>ults see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv. The total
d sites with remedy construction completed (see measure #162 below).
Baseline - By the end of FY 2006, Superfund had completed construction at 65 percent (1,006) of 1,557 final and deleted NPL sites in that
year.
Explanation - Serious weather impacts in September, unanticipated increases in waste volumes, and the need to construct an additional
electrical supply line impacted four sites that caused the program to miss the target.
(162) Number of Federal Facility
Superfund sites where all remedies
have completed construction
56
59
60
61
64
65
68
69
Sites
Baseline - Through FY 2008, EPA had completed construction at 61 Federal facility Superfund sites. The four Federal Facility Superfund
sites completed in FY 2010 are included in the result for measure 141 above: "annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction
completed."
(163) Number of Federal Facility
Superfund sites where the final
remedial decision for contaminants
at the site has been determined
76
71
81
73
77
77
92
82
Sites
Baseline - Through FY 2008, final remedies had been determined at 73 Federal Facility Superfund sites.
Explanation - The target for F Y 20 1 0 was 1 5 sites for a total of 92 sites. This target needed to be submitted prior to EPA' s FY 20 1 0 work
planning meetings where regional EPA targets are negotiated. The negotiations resulted in a possible universe of seven final remedy sites
for FY 2010 of which five were achieved. The Agency has recently completed an effort to analyze regional performance and planning
data, in an attempt to more fully understand impedances. Additionally, EPA has begun asking for regional estimates three years in
advance instead of two years in advance.
1231

-------
Strategic Target (7)
By 2014, increase to 50 percent the number of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(CAS) Cumulative percentage of
RCRA facilities with final
remedies constructed
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
35
Actual
37

Unit
Percent
Baseline - At the end of FY 2008, cleanup remedies had been constructed at 24 percent of 3,746 facilities.
Strategic Target (8)
Each year through 2014, reduce the backlog of LUST cleanups (confirmed releases that have yet to be cleaned up) that do not meet
state risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration by 1 percent. This means a decrease from 23 percent in
2007 to 16 percent in 2014.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(112) Number of LUST cleanups
completed that meet risk-based
standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration (ARRA
measure)*
FY 2007
Target
13,000
Actual
13,862
FY 2008
Target
13,000
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA
(combined results). For more information on FY 2010 ARRA res
Actual
12,768
FY 2009
Target
12,250
Actual
12,944
FY2010
Target
12,250
Actual
11,591

Unit
Cleanups
. The FY 2010 results represent the total from base funding plus ARRA
>ults see: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv.


Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 14,493 leaking UST cleanups, for a cumulative total of 350,813 cleanups completed since the
inception of the program. Leaking USTs completed in Indian Country are included in this number.
                                                          1232

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Explanation - EPA, states and Tribes met 95 percent of the national LUST cleanup target of 12,250 sites. The LUST program has
experienced over the past few years increasing challenges associated with completing cleanups that relate to more complex groundwater
sites remaining in the backlog, increasing costs, and the availability of state resources (fewer dollars and an increasing workload on state
staff). The ARRA funds have helped decelerate these trends with extra funds and attention, but have not reversed the overall direction.
(113) Number of LUST cleanups
completed that meet risk-based
standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration in Indian
Country
30
54
30
40
30
49
30
62
Cleanups
Baseline - In FY 2006, EPA completed 43 leaking UST cleanups in Indian Country, for a cumulative total of 738 leaking UST cleanups
completed in Indian Country since the inception of this program.
Explanation - EPA exceeded the goal for the number of cleanups in Indian Country by 106 percent due to an unexpected increase in the
number of cleanups led by the state of Wyoming in Indian Country.
Strategic Target (9)
By 2014, ensure that 733 Superfund NPL sites are "sitewide ready for anticipated use."
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(S10) Number of Superfund sites
ready for anticipated use site-wide
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
64
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
85
FY 2009
Target
65
Actual
66
FY2010
Target
65
Actual
66

Unit
Sites
Baseline - As of July 2006, 19 percent (194) of the 1,006 final and deleted construction complete NPL sites in that year met EPA's
definition of ready for anticipated use site-wide.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.2.3: Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund Sites
Potentially Responsible Party Participation at Superfund Sites
                                                          1233

-------
Strategic Target (1)
Each year through 2014, reach a settlement or take an enforcement action before the  start of a remedial action at 95 percent of
Superfund sites having viable, liable responsible parties other than the federal government.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(285) Percentage of Superfund
sites at which settlement or
enforcement action taken before
the start of RA
FY 2007
Target
95
Actual
98
FY 2008
Target
95
Actual
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Actual
100
FY2010
Target
95
Actual
98

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 1998 approximately 70 percent of new remedial work atNPL sites (excluding federal facilities) was initiated by private
parties. In FY 2003, a settlement was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-federal PRPs before the start of the remedial
action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund sites.
Strategic Target (2)
Each year through 2014, address all unaddressed costs in SOL cases for sites with unaddressed total past Superfund costs equal to or
greater than $200,000
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(078) Refer to U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ), settle, or write off
100 percent of SOL cases for SF
sites with total unaddressed past
costs equal to or greater than
$200,000 and report value of costs
recovered
FY 2007
Target
100






Actual
98






FY 2008
Target
100






Actual
100






FY 2009
Target
100






Actual
100






FY2010
Target
100






Actual
100







Unit
Percent






Baseline - In FY 2009 the Agency will have addressed 100 percent of cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with total past costs
equal or greater than $200,000.
                                                            1234

-------
OBJECTIVE: 3.3: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration,
leads to preferred environmental outcomes.
PMs Met
2
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
2'
Total PMs
4
 This total includes two performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 3.3.1: Land Protection Research
Land Protection Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
protecting and restoring land.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H87) Percentage of land
publications in high impact
journals
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2008
Target
25.7
Actual
26.2
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY2010
Target
26.7
Actual
Data Not
Collected

Unit
Percent
Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published
in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious
journals, as determined by "Thomson's JCR". Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match
the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC.
Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally
compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
(H88) Percentage of land
publications rated as highly cited
publications.
No Target
Established
Biennial
26.8
18
No Target
Established
Biennial
27.8
Data Not
Collected
Percent
                                                         1235

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an
article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in
the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI". Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period,
and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on
the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an
instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally
compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
(H89) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
manage material streams, conserve
resources and appropriately
manage waste long-term goal
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring the planned outputs delivered in support of the materials management, resources
conservation and waste management long-term goal; 67 percent of its outputs were completed on time. This measure contributes to EPA's
goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
(H90) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
mitigation, management and long-
term stewardship of contaminated
sites long-term goal
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In 2003, the program began measuring the planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management and long-term
stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal; 87 percent of its outputs were completed on time. This measure contributes to EPA's
goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
1236

-------
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
                   1237

-------
         GOAL  4 AT  A GLANCE:  HEALTHY  COMMUNITIES AND  ECOSYSTEMS
                                   FY 2010 Performance Measures

              Met = 53 Not Met =  16 Data Available After 2/7/11 = 13* (Total Measures = 82)
          This total Includes 2 performance measures under Objective 4 for which the Agency did not collect data-
      How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                (Dollars in Thousands)
                                            Goal 4 Performance Measures
        Healthy
      Communities
     and Ecosystems
       $1,952,626.3
          16.4%
Compliance and
 Environmental
  Stewardship

  $814,298.8
25
                                                      20
       Source: FY 2010 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
                                                           Objective I
                                              Objective 2
                            Ob)ectlve 3
Objective 4
                               Goal 4 FY 2010 Performance and Resources
                               Strategic Objective
                                                          FY2010
                                                         Obligations
                                                        (in thousands)
                                            %of
                                           Goal 4
                                           Funds
  Objective 1—Chemical and Pesticide Risks: By 2011, prevent and reduce pesticide
  and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
                                                         $501,007.8
                                            26%
  Objective 2—Communities: Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the eco-
  logical systems that support them.
                                                         $294,615.3
                                            15%
  Objective 3—Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems: Protect, sustain, and restore
  the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
                                                         $725,189.8
                                            37%
  Objective 4—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.
                                                         $431,813.4
                                            22%
  Goal 4 Total
                                                        $1,952,626.3
                                           100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                                  1238

-------
Goal Purpose

To protect, sustain, and restore the nation's communities and ecosystems, EPA uses a mix of
regulatory programs, partnership efforts, and incentive-based approaches. EPA programs ensure
that pesticides entering or re-entering the market meet established health and safety standards,
and that other new and existing industrial/commercial chemicals do not pose unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment.

Many EPA programs that promote healthy communities are designed to bring tools, resources,
and approaches to bear at the local level. The Agency encourages community redevelopment by
providing funds to identify, assess, and clean up the estimated hundreds of thousands of
properties that lie abandoned or unused because of previous pollution. EPA helps promote public
involvement and establishes a sense of environmental stewardship to sustain environmental
improvements by forging partnerships with communities to address local pollution problems.

EPA also collaborates with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and many
nongovernmental organizations on geographically based efforts to protect America's wetlands
and major estuaries. Working with partners and stakeholders, EPA has established special
programs to protect and restore natural resources.

Some threats to Americans' health and environment originate outside U.S. borders. Many
pollutants can easily travel across borders via rivers, air and ocean currents, and migrating
wildlife. EPA employs a range of strategies to help mitigate some of these risks, including
participating in bilateral programs, cooperating with multinational organizations, and
contributing to a  set of measurable environmental and health endpoints.

Sound science guides the Agency in identifying and addressing emerging issues and advances its
understanding of long-standing human health and environmental challenges. EPA's cutting-edge
research helps it better characterize risks and benefits, furthers  its ability to measure and describe
environmental conditions, and encourages stewardship and sustainable solutions to
environmental problems.

Contributing Programs

Brownfields and  Land Revitalization, Chemical Risk Review and Reduction, Chemical Risk
Management, Chesapeake Bay, Children's Health Protection, Columbia River Estuary
Partnership, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE), Computational Toxicology Research, Endocrine Disrupter Research  and
Screening Programs, Environmental Justice, Global Change Research,  Great Lakes, Gulf of
Mexico, Homeland Security Research, Human Health and Ecosystem Protection Research,
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), International Sources of Pollution, Lead and Lead
Categorical Grant Programs,  Long Island Sound, Mercury Research, National Environmental
Monitoring Initiative, National Estuary Program (NEP), Other  Geographic Programs (including
Lake Pontchartrain, Puget Sound, and South Florida), Persistent Organic Pollutants, Pesticides
and Toxics Research, Pesticides Licensing and Implementation, Smart Growth, Research
                                          1239

-------
Fellowships, State and Local Prevention and Preparedness, Trade and Governance, U.S.-Mexico
Border, and Wetlands.

EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended
outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal
4, see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/fmancialperformancereports.htm which summarizes
the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
                                         1240

-------
Objective 4.1: Chemicals, Organisms, and Pesticide Risk
                FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 4.1
                         (in thousands)
                                    Objective 1
                                    $501,007.80
                                       26%
                Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,952.626.3
FY 2010 Performance
 Measures: Objective
         4.1

       Met = 11
     Not Met = 7
 Data Available After
 February?, 2011 =8
     (Total = 26)
In January 2010, Administrator Jackson wrote, "One of my highest priorities is to make
significant and long overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our
environment and our bodies."14 EPA, under the TSCA, is charged with identifying and managing
unreasonable risks to human health and the environment for new chemicals entering the
marketplace as well as chemicals already being used in U.S. commerce.

The Agency also works to mitigate exposure to and high-risk "legacy" chemicals such as lead,
mercury, PCBs, and asbestos, where production and/or use have been reduced or discontinued
but the potential for human and environmental exposure related to past uses remains high.

Reducing Risks of Chemicals Currently Used in Commerce

EPA assesses the safety of thousands of chemicals already in commerce before TSCA took effect
in 1978, and acts to reduce identified risks. In September 2009, the Administrator released a set
of essential principles15 to help inform Congressional efforts to strengthen TSCA and at the same
time outlined efforts EPA would commence to ensure chemical  safety under existing laws.16
EPA made significant progress in FY 2010 in implementing those enhanced efforts with an
emphasis  on reducing risks posed by existing chemicals.
Risk Management
14 Seven Priorities for EPA's Future: http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/
15 Essential Principles for Reform of Chemical Management Legislation:
www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/principles.html
16 Enhancing EPA's Chemical Management Program:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/Existing.Chem.Fact.sheet.pdf
                                            1241

-------
In FY 2010, EPA began developing and implementing a number of risk management actions to
reduce or eliminate chemical risks. The Agency issued a final Significant New Use Rule17
(SNUR) addressing use of elemental mercury in measuring devices such as flow meters and
natural gas manometers and pyrometers, and published final SNURs for two carbon nanotubes
(CNTs) requiring companies to provide EPA with 90 days notice before they manufacture or
import the two CNTs and to comply with restrictions EPA has already imposed on the
nanotube's original manufacturer.

In April 2010, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the
Agency's potential reassessment of its current authorizations for PCB use and distribution in
commerce.

EPA also continued non-regulatory risk management actions including the global
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Stewardship Program to reduce PFOA and related chemicals
emissions and product content. The stewardship program's October 2009 report showed
substantial progress, with six of eight participating companies reporting reductions in PFOA
emissions, more than the 95 percent program goal for 2010. The stewardship program will
continue as companies work toward eliminating emissions and product content of these
chemicals by  2015.

Data Collection and Management

To meet critical HPV chemical data needs, EPA published the Final HPV-2 Test Rule, covering
19 chemicals, in  September 2010; proposed the HPV-3 Test Rule, covering 29 chemicals; and
made progress towards proposing the HPV-4 Test Rule 4, covering an anticipated 45 chemicals.
EPA proposed revisions to the TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule to facilitate
electronic reporting, develop more robust exposure data sets on approximately 7,000 chemicals,
and rapidly make those data publicly available.

As part of EPA's ongoing efforts to increase transparency and public access to chemical
information, in January 2010 EPA issued a CBI policy clarification for review of CBI chemical
identity claims for TSCA Section 8(e) notices of substantial risk of injury to health or the
environment.  The result of this is 134 prospective submissions reviewed as well as 60
retrospective case files reviewed. In May 2010, EPA announced that it will begin a general
practice of reviewing confidentiality claims for chemical identities in health and safety studies,
giving the public access to important information that would have otherwise remained secret.
The Agency committed in the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan to review all new CBI claims as they
are submitted and, as appropriate, challenge and declassify studies that should be  made public.
The Agency also committed to review and, as appropriate, challenge and declassify by FY 2015
all CBI claims submitted prior to FY 2010, which amount to approximately 22,000 cases. In
addition, 1,100 cases will be reviewed in FY 2011 and 3,300 in FY 2012. Also, for the first time
ever, EPA provided free online access to the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory,18 allowing
17 www. federakegister. go v/articles/2010/07/2172010-17718/elemental-mercurv-used-in-flow-meters-natural-gas-manometers-
and-pyrometers-significant-new-use-rule
18 www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm

                                          1242

-------
the public easy access to the listing of approximately 84,000 chemicals in commerce. EPA also
integrated information on 3,800 TSCA facilities and 6,300 chemicals into Envirofacts,19 EPA's
single point of access on for information about environmental data. For additional information,
see: http://www.epa.gov/envirofw/

Chemical Assessment

In FY 2010, the Agency completed 270 Hazard Characterizations for HPV chemicals
(produced/imported in amounts greater than 1 million Ib annually), which is a 40 percent
increase from FY 2009. In FY 2010, EPA completed and posted eight action plans, which
summarize available information on  chemical hazards and exposure pathways and identify
potential  risk management actions that EPA is considering20 for the following chemicals:

   •   Hundreds of long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (LCPFCs).

   •   Penta, octa, and decabromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs).

   •   Eight phthalates.

   •   Short-chain chlorinated paraffins.

   •   Benzidine dyes.

   •   Bisphenol A (BPA).

   •   Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).

   •   Nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NP/NPEs).

The Agency also achieved a major homeland  security milestone by developing proposed Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for the final 27 chemicals among the 273 priority
chemicals for which AEGLs are needed. Emergency planners and first responders use AEGLs to
prepare for and deal with chemical emergencies by determining safe exposure levels. The focus
is now shifting to finalizing proposed guideline levels. In FY 2011, EPA expects to advance 203
proposed values to interim status and 70 to final status.

New Chemicals Program

Through its New Chemicals Program, EPA ensures that new industrial chemicals introduced into
U.S. commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. In FY 2010,
the Agency reviewed 558 Premanufacture Notices (PMNs), 376 Low Volume Exemption (LVE)
Notices, 17 Low Release/Low Exposure (LoREx) Exemption  Notices,  and 10 Test Market
Exemption Notices. Of these, 23 PMNs, 11 LoREx notices, and one LVE notice were submitted
for nanomaterials; review is currently in progress on 19 of these notices. EPA also issued 5(e)
19 Envirofacts: www.epa.gov/envirofw/
20 www. epa. gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/ecactionpln.html
                                         1243

-------
consent orders requiring certain controls and testing on 33 chemicals, and promulgated four
SNURs covering 59 chemicals. These consent orders included 10 nanomaterials and one of the
SNURs covered two CNTs. In addition, 3 Microbial Commercial Activity Notices (MCANs) for
genetically modified microorganisms were reviewed and allowed for use in ethanol production; a
SNUR for one of these microorganisms is under development.

In January 2010, EPA published a final rule_that allows and then, by April 6, 2012, requires
manufacturers and importers to submit PMNs and other TSCA Section 521 documents to EPA
electronically. After April 6, 2011, paper submissions will no longer be accepted but forms can
continue to be provided via CD/DVD in addition to electronically through EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX). Starting April 6, 2012, submissions can only be submitted via  CDX. The
Agency developed software and training to help companies comply with these new requirements
(see http://www.epa.gOv/oppt/newchems//epmn/epmn-index.htm). Training has also been
provided at various conferences such as Global Chemical Regulations Conference. The shift
from paper to electronic submission is  expected to yield time and cost savings for EPA and
submitters. Following promulgation of the rule, EPA achieved a 50 percent reduction in the cost
per submission of managing PMNs through the Focus meeting, with further efficiency gains
expected in future years as paper and the CD/DVD submissions are eliminated, ultimately
leading to a 65 percent reduction from  pre-rule per-submission costs.

EPA had originally targeted greater cost reductions (62 percent in FY 2010) based on versions of
the electronic reporting under consideration at earlier stages in its development, but those
reductions became unachievable under the final rule that retained some internal manual
processing steps such as attaching identifying/classifying information to the electronic PMN
records. Nonetheless, with the new electronic system in place, EPA staff involved in the PMN
review process now has electronic access to the information provided by submitters, streamlining
their development of recommendations for EPA's decisions regarding the entry of new
chemicals into commerce.

Lead and Other Legacy Chemicals

In FY 2010, EPA made significant progress reducing risk associated with lead, mercury, and
PCBs.

Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning

Lead poisoning in children can cause lasting neurological damage. Lead-based paint is the
primary source of lead exposure for children in the United States.22 Data released in 2010 by the
CDC  demonstrated that EPA and its federal, state, and tribal partners are on target for achieving
the government-wide goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. The percentage of
children with elevated blood (10 micrograms per deciliter [ug/dL] or higher) lead levels - levels
at which lead poisoning is defined to have occurred - declined from 1.6 percent in 2002 to 0.9
21 www. epa. go v/oppt/newchems/index.htm
22 Lanphear, B.P., et al. Environ Res., American Academy of Pediatrics, 79(l):51-68 October 1998:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.Org/cgi/content/full/pediatricsU16/4/1036.

                                          1244

-------
                9^
percent in 2006.  Further declines in this percentage were unable to be reported by CDC for
2008 due to the very small number of observations meeting the 10 ug/dL threshold, and a similar
result is expected in 2010 and future years,24 leading to the conclusion that the federal
government has essentially achieved its goal to eliminate occurrence of childhood blood lead
levels of 10 ug/dL or higher by 2010. However, recent findings show that adverse health effects
in children can occur at blood lead levels well below 10 ug/dL. Accordingly, in FY 2010 EPA
began targeting reductions in the percent of children with blood lead levels of 5 ug/dL or higher,
which has dropped from more than 25 percent in the early  1990s to 3  percent in the 2005 to 2008
sampling period.25 EPA committed in the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan issued in FY 2010 to
reduce this percentage to 1 percent or less by 2014.26

EPA is  also making greater than expected progress toward its goal to reduce disparities in blood
lead levels between low-income and non-low-income children. That disparity has declined  from
a striking 38 percent difference in 200427 to a 23 percent difference in 2008, exceeding EPA's
FY 2010 performance target of a 28 percent difference.28 In response, EPA committed in FY
2011-2015 Strategic Plan to further reduce this disparity to a 10 percent difference or less by
2014.29

In early 2010, EPA began implementing the Lead RRP Rule,30 which requires renovation
contractors to receive training and become certified in the use of lead-safe work practices when
renovating housing and child-occupied facilities built prior to 1978. As of December 16, 2010,
EPA has accredited 449 training providers. These training  providers conducted almost 26,000
courses, training more than 440,000 people and certifying more than 73,000 renovation firms. As
of December 2010, ten states self-certified as authorized states and are authorized to administer
the RRP program.  In FY 2010 EPA, also began work under a settlement agreement with
environmental and childrens health advocacy groups to undertake rulemakings to revise
provisions of the RRP rule. These actions along with additional rulemakings initiated in FY 2010
will result in an RRP rule that will  cover an  estimated 50 percent more renovations, greatly
increasing the number of children and adults protected against exposures to lead-based paint
hazards. The settlement agreement also stipulated that by September 30, 2011, the Agency  must
23 National Center for Environmental Health, Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, NCEH
Pub. No. 05-0570. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2005:
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf.
24 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009:
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf.
25 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009:
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf.
26 FY 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2010:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
27 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009:
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf.
28 National Center for Environmental Health, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2009:
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport.pdf
29 FY 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.: 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm.
30 www. epa. gov/lead/pubs/renovation.htm

                                              1245

-------
consult with the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) on a risk assessment methodology to
evaluate the hazards posed by renovations in the interior of public and commercial buildings not
covered by the final RRP rule.

Reducing Mercury Use

EPA continues to focus on approaches to reducing risks from mercury exposure, which can
damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young
children.

In FY 2010, EPA worked to mitigate mercury releases from artisanal  and small-scale gold
mining, one of the most significant global sources of mercury emissions,31 with heavy health
impacts on women and children.32 In Peru this year, EPA successfully developed and piloted a
low-cost technology that reduces mercury emissions from gold refining shops by 80 percent.33
Also, in another pilot project, EPA facilitated the reduction of mercury use and emissions from
the National Childrens Hospital in Costa Rica,34 leading to the reduction of 3,858 grams of
mercury.35

EPA was a major contributor to the first United Nations negotiating session to develop a
comprehensive, legally binding instrument to control mercury pollution at a global level. Studies
show that more than 70 percent of the mercury deposition in the United States is from global
sources. Mercury contaminated fish have been found in streams and coastal waters across the
country.

Reducing PCB Risks

In FY 2010, EPA increased its outreach on caulk containing PCBs that was used in some
buildings, including schools, during the!950s through 1970s. Outreach efforts have involved
disseminating information about managing PCBs in caulk to school administrators and building
managers and providing them with tools to help minimize potential exposures.36 The Agency
will continue to assist communities in identifying potential problems and, if necessary, assist in
developing plans for PCB testing and removal. The Agency has also begun conducting additional
research to determine the sources and levels of PCBs in schools and to evaluate different
strategies to reduce exposures. The results of this research will be used to provide further
guidance to schools and building owners as they develop and implement long-term solutions.
31 EPA Moves to Slash Mercury from Gold Production / Harmful Emissions Would Be Cut by More than 70 Percent, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April 16,2010:
http://vosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b7538955c585257359003fD230/Oadc34b66affb7m525770700652833iOpenDo
cument.
32 Counter, S.A., Buchanan, L.H., and F. Ortega, Neurocognitive Screening of Mercury-Exposed Children of Andean Gold
Miners, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 12:209-214,2006.
33 www.epa.gov/intemational/toxics/asgm.html
34 Mercury Elimination at Hospital Nacional de Ninos and General Hospital Dr. Carlos Luis Valverde Vega, Costa Rica: Final
Report, BLH Technologies, Inc., EPA Contract EP-W-04-22, March 2009.
35 http://www.caftadr-environment.org/conferences/Conference_Docs/2_201_Opening_Rubev_Lawrence.ppt (USAID El
Salvador presentation to a CAFTA-DR workshop).
36 www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk/
                                             1246

-------
Exposure and Risks from Pesticides

EPA's National Pesticide Program promotes human health, safe and abundant food, worker
safety, and environmental protection from pesticide contamination, primarily through the
pesticide Registration Review Process. EPA's FY 2010 efforts included:

    •  Reducing the concentration of certain pesticides detected in the general population by 50
      percent.

    •  Protecting workers exposed to pesticides by maintaining or improving on the current low
      incident rate.

    •  Achieving a 50 percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic
      pesticides.

Reducing the percent of urban watersheds that exceed National Pesticide Program aquatic life
benchmarks for three key pesticides, and reducing the percentage of agricultural watersheds that
exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides. The Agency has made continued
progress in advancing pesticide safety and transparency. In the pesticide re-evaluation process
(registration review), more than 75 pesticide active ingredients entered the review process in
2010. In addition, more than 1,700 pesticide products were reregistered as part of the re-
evaluation process. A total of 22 active ingredients were registered in 2010, of which many were
for chemistries generally  safer than the alternative active ingredients currently on the market. In
2010, the Agency initiated a new voluntary public process to enhance transparency of its
pesticide registration decisions.

Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP)

Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), Congress directed EPA to develop and
implement an EDSP for endocrine effects. EPA's two-tiered program screens substances for
their potential to interact with certain hormonal systems in Tier 1, while Tier 2 will test for
adverse  effects. Components of the program include developing and validating the screening
assays, prioritizing chemicals for screening, and developing and implementing the policies and
procedures for screening.

In FY 2010, EPA made strides to ensure the safety of chemicals with respect to potential
endocrine disruption by:

    •  Publishing guidelines for assays designed to detect a substance's potential to interact with
      the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid systems.

    •  Issuing orders for 67 pesticide chemicals to be screened by manufacturers or importers.

    •  Conducting work to prioritize additional chemicals anticipated to undergo screening and
      developing supplementary policies and procedures applicable to these chemicals.
                                           1247

-------
EPA continued validation efforts for the more complex tests that will be used in the second tier
of testing and of potential Tier 1 replacement assays. For additional information, see:
www.epa.gov/endo.

Long Term Data Trend: Percent of Children (Aged 1 to 5) with Elevated Blood Lead Levels
            Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure: Percent of
           Children (Aged 1 to 5 Years) With Elevated Blood Lead Levels
   30.00%

   25.00%

   20.00%

   15.00%

   10.00%

    5.00%

    0.00%

















6.00%




f








1 60% n ono/
I — -1°-90/0o.oo%
1 1
26.00%














R 7fl%

4 mo/.

• 3.00%


                      >10ug/dL                         >5ug/dL
         * 2003 - 2006 and 2005 - 2008 estimates for >10ug/dl are unstable (relative
         standard error is greater than 30% but less than 40%) See Data Limitations
Background

Lead is a chemical that has been widely used in the past and has far-reaching impacts on human
health. Lead has historically been used in the production of gasoline, ceramic products, paints,
metal alloys, batteries, and solder. EPA has phased out leaded gasoline and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission in 1978 banned the sale of leaded paint, but lead-contaminated dust
from paint used before the ban remains as the primary source of lead exposure.

Lead has been demonstrated to exert "a broad array of deleterious effects on multiple organ
systems via widely diverse mechanisms of action. This array of health effects includes effects on
hematological, immune, cardiovascular and renal systems." 7 The evidence for these effects is
comprehensively described in EPA's Air Quality Criteria Lead document.38 The blood lead level
at which health effects begin to occur is not certain.
37 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out andRecordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 21,2009:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Dav-28/t25986.pdf.
^Air Qualify Criteria for Lead, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 29,2006:
http://cfpub. epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay. cfm?deid=l 58823.
                                           1248

-------
The nervous system has long been recognized as a target of lead toxicity, with the developing
nervous system affected at lower exposures than the mature system.39 Hence, children aged 1 to
5 years have the greatest health risk from lead exposure because their bodies are still developing.
For example, the overall weight of the available evidence, described in the Criteria Document,40
provides clear substantiation of neurocognitive decrements being associated in children with
mean blood lead levels in the range of 5 to 10 |ig/dL, and some analyses indicate lead effects on
intellectual attainment of children for which population mean blood lead levels in the analysis
ranged from 2 to 8 jig/dL.41  Thus, while blood lead levels in U.S. children have decreased
notably since the late  1970s, newer studies have investigated and reported  associations of effects
on the neurodevelopment of children with blood lead levels similar to the more recent, lower
blood lead levels.42

EPA is coordinating its efforts with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
(HUD), CDC, and other federal  agencies to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. These federal
agencies maintain the elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a public health goal through
continued vigilance in addressing the remaining lead-based paint hazards in older housing stock
through implementing the lead-based paint abatement program and the RRP program, and
through conducting targeted outreach and education.43

What This Shows

In the  1970s, 88 percent of children had elevated blood lead levels above 10 jig/dL.44 From 1988
to 2006, the percentage of children with blood lead levels above this level has continuously
declined from 6 percent in 1994 to less than 1 percent in 2006.45 With approximately 20 million
children in the United States, this represents approximately 190,000 children with blood lead
levels  abovelO ng/dL. FY 2008  NHANES results were un-reportable under CDC  Statistical
Guidelines as the number of observations was too small to  support a reliable statistical estimate.
This suggests continued progress towards the goal to eliminate childhood lead poisoning (blood
lead levels higher thanlO ug/dL) by FY 2010. Given the trend in achieving the government wide
goal to reducing blood lead  levels to below 10 jig/dL46 and the inability to generate statistically
reliable results beyond this point, EPA has discontinued this measure.

Adverse effects may occur at blood lead levels at or below  5 |ig/dL, and the latest NHANES data
for 2005 to 2008 indicate that 3  percent of children in the United States currently have blood lead
39 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out andRecordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 21,2009:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Dav-28/t25986.pdf.
40 Air Quality Criteria for Lead, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 29,2006:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplav.cfm?deid=l 58823.
41 Gilbert, S.G. and Weiss, B. A rationale for lowering the blood lead action level from 10 to 2 jug/dL. Neuro Toxicology, 27, 693-
701,2006: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2212280/.
42 Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 21,2009:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/October/Day-28/t25986.pdf
43 FY 2011 -2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2010.
44 Surveillance for Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Children - United States, 1991 - 2001, Centers for Disease Control.
45 Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, National Center for Environmental Health, NCEH
Pub. No. 05-0570, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2005:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2825.
46 FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2010.

                                              1249

-------
concentration above this level. EPA began targeting reductions in children with elevated blood
lead levels above 5 |ig/dL in 2010, and is targeting in its FY 2015 Strategic Plan to reduce this to
1 percent or less by FY 2014.

Data Quality

Source: NHANES is a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
NCHS is part of CDC and has the responsibility for producing vital and health statistics for the
Nation.

NHANES47 is a survey designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children
in the United States. 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 United States. The
CDC NCHS is responsible for conducting the survey and the release of the data to the public.
The NHANES data are reported periodically as the National Report  on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals, which was most recently published in July 2005.4

Data from the CDC's NHANES is recognized as the primary database in the United States for
national blood lead statistics. Analytical  guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how
many years of data should be combined for an analysis.49 The data used in the performance
measures follow this guidance and are all derived from the NHANES  as reported in the
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (pre-2005 data)50 or
provided by ChildStats.gov (2005 to 2006  data).51 This data source measures blood levels in the
same units (i.e., |ig/dL) and at standard detection limits.

Future performance results will be updated as new versions of CDC reports on human exposure
to environmental chemicals become available.

Data Limitations: Data should be interpreted with knowledge of the NHANES sampling and
statistical analysis methods.52 In reference  to the 2004 to 2006 data provided above, it should be
noted that while the estimate of children with levels greater than 10 |ig/dL is a low percentage,
the estimate is considered unstable (relative standard error is greater than 30 percent but less than
40 percent).53
47 NHANES: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
48 Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, National Center for Environmental Health, 2005.
NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA,
2005: http://www.cdc. gov/exposurereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf.
49 Analytic  and Reporting Guidelines, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Analytical Guidelines, National Center
for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD, 2006.
50 Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, National Center for Environmental Health, 2005.
NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA,
2005: http: //www. cdc. go v/expo surereport/pdf/thirdreport.pdf.
51 Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics,
2009: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/phenviro3.asp.
52 Analytic  and Reporting Guidelines, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Analytical Guidelines, National Center
for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD, 2006.
53 Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics,
2009: http: //www. childstats. go v/americaschildren/phenviro 3. asp.


                                             1250

-------
Objective 4.2: Communities
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 4.2
                         (in thousands)
               Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,952,626.3
                                                                 FY 2010 Performance
                                                                Measures: Objective 4.2

                                                                       Met =9
                                                                     Not Met = 0
                                                                  Data Available After
                                                                  February 7, 2011=1
                                                                     (Total = 10)
Brownfields and Land Revitalization

EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program54 is dedicated to revitalizing real properties
where expansion, redevelopment, or reuse might be complicated by hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. The Brownfields program works in partnership with states, tribes,
and localities to promote the assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse of Brownfields,
petroleum Brownfields, and other contaminated properties.

In FY 2010, EPA began piloting an area-wide planning approach to community Brownfields
challenges.  The approach recognizes that revitalization of the area surrounding the Brownfield
site(s) is just as critical to the successful reuse of the property as assessment, cleanup, and
redevelopment of an individual site. As one of EPA's Priority Goals, EPA will provide grants
and/or direct technical assistance to 23 communities that applied through the Brownfields Area-
Wide Planning Pilot Program. This assistance will enable recipients to initiate development of an
area-wide plan within their community and to identify next steps and resources needed to
implement the plan.

EPA surpassed all of its Brownfields performance goals by assessing 1,326 properties, cleaning
up 109 properties, and leveraging 5,177 jobs and $1.4 billion in cleanup and redevelopment
funds. In addition, the Agency made 3,627 acres ready for reuse through site assessment or
property cleanup. Additional FY 2010 accomplishments include:

       •   EPA co-sponsored the National Brownfields Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana
          in April 2010. The National Brownfields Conference is the largest, most
  www.epa.gov/brownfields.
                                          1251

-------
          comprehensive conference in the nation focused on environmental revitalization and
          economic redevelopment. The conference had an estimated attendance of 5,000
          people and an estimated economic impact of more than $10 million on the Gulf Coast
          region and is designed to bring developers, community environmental justice groups,
          federal, state, and local governments together for educational sessions, town-hall
          discussions, exchange of ideas, and networking. This free event is designed to expand
          the conversation on environmental protection with programmatic highlights that
          include educational sessions, a transaction forum, and an environmental justice
          caucus.

       •  Under the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, EPA, HUD, and DOT continue
          working together to ensure that federal investments, policies, and actions support
          development in more efficient and sustainable locations. In February 2010, EPA,
          HUD, and DOT selected five pilot Brownfields communities across the country
          where public transit and affordable housing needs converge. EPA is providing access
          to expert environmental and economic analysis to assist communities in planning for
          the eventual assessment, cleanup, and sustainable redevelopment of Brownfield sites,
          ensuring equitable redevelopment and long-term quality of life improvements. For
          additional information, see: www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/index.html.

       •  EPA worked with the White House Council on Auto Communities and Workers in
          conducting significant outreach activities to engage community leaders and
          stakeholders in the development of solutions for the revitalization of contaminated
          properties resulting from the downturn in the auto manufacturing sector. EPA will
          assist communities in understanding the type and extent of contamination at former
          auto manufacturing plants and is working with the DOT and the DOJ in the
          establishment of a nearly  $800 million Environmental Response Trust that will be
          used to clean up 90 sites owned by Old General Motors (GM) and undertake targeted
          cleanup at certain additional sites where Old GM bears unique responsibilities for
          environmental contamination.55

       •  EPA awarded 186 assessment, revolving loan fund, cleanup, and job training grants
          through the ARRA.

U.S.-Mexico Border

Through the U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program (Border 2012), the United States and Mexico
collaborate to improve the environment and protect the health of the 14.6 million people living
along the border, consistent with the  principles of sustainable development. The program
continues to be a successful joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments, the 10
Border States (four U.S. and six  Mexican), and local communities to  improve the region's
environmental health. The results achieved to date include the following:
55 www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/council-auto-communities-and-workers-announces-landmark-framework-speed-
redevelopme
                                          1252

-------
       •  Constructed adequate water and wastewater infrastructure for more than 7 million
          border residents.

       •  Completed the first hazardous waste cleanup at Metales y Derivados, a lead smelting
          facility, under Mexico's new cleanup law.

       •  Continuing cleanup at the Ciudad Juarez scrap tire site where cleanups to date have
          eliminated more than 4.5 million tires along the border.

       •  Updated the sister city plan for the municipality of Juarez (Chihuahua) and Sunland
          Park (New Mexico) to incorporate Isleta del Sur Pueblo, making this the first sister
          city plan to include a Native American Tribe.

Environmental Justice Grants

EPA awarded $1.9 million in environmental justice grants to 78 non-profit organizations and
local governments working on environmental justice issues nationwide supporting Administrator
Jackson's priority to expand the conversation on environmentalism and work for environmental
justice. The grants are designed to help communities understand and address environmental
challenges and create self-sustaining, community-based partnerships focused on improving
human health and the environment at the local level.

EPA has committed $1 million to address environmental justice challenges in 10 communities,
over the next two years. These 10 communities will serve as models for EPA's  committed
environmental justice efforts, and help highlight the disproportionate environmental burdens
placed on low-income and minority communities all across the nation. EPA also provides
technical assistance to a range of community-based organizations across the country to enhance
and support their environmental justice efforts.
                                          1253

-------
Objective 4.3: Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystem
                FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 4.3
                          (in thousands)
                      Objectives
                      $725,189.80
                        37%
                 Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1.952.626.3
                                                                    FY 2010 Performance
                                                                   Measures: Objective 4.3

                                                                         Met = 21
                                                                        Not Met = 6
                                                                     Data Available After
                                                                     February?, 2011 = 1
                                                                        (Total = 28)
People and the ecological integrity of aquatic systems rely on healthy watersheds. EPA uses a
suite of programs to protect and improve water quality in the nation's watersheds—rivers, lakes,
wetlands, and streams. EPA protects, sustains, and restores the health of natural habitats and
ecosystems by identifying and evaluating problem areas, developing tools, and improving
community capacity to address problems. While EPA continues to make progress, in January
2010, Administrator Jackson wrote, "America's waterbodies are imperiled as never before.
Water quality and enforcement programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and
stormwater runoff, to invasive species
56
National Estuary Program (NEP)

The NEP develops and implements Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans to
protect and restore water quality and ecological integrity of estuaries as well as critical habitats.
Data for FY 2010 show that the 28 national estuary programs and their partners protected or
restored 89,985 acres of habitat. Analysis of the leveraging data shows that the programs played
a primary role in leveraging $20 million from EPA Section 320 of the CWA and other funds to
obtain an additional $274 million, which is a ratio of $14 raised for every $1 of the funds
provided by EPA.
 ' http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/
                                           1254

-------
Coastal Wetlands

The most recent National Wetlands Status and Trends Report showed that from 1998 to 2004,
overall wetland gains exceeded wetland losses in the United States at a rate of 32,000 acres per
year, aggregated across all wetland categories. The Agency expects that the Status and Trends
Report, expected to be published in spring 2011, will show that EPA met or exceeded its goals of
a net increase of wetlands between 2005 and 2009. Although the increase in wetlands acres is
positive,  a report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA reported that coastal wetlands
continue  to decline at a rate of about 59,000 acres per year.5? In coordination with other federal
agencies  and state and local program managers, EPA has crafted an approach to evaluate
underlying causes of coastal wetland loss and identify best practices for minimizing these losses.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)

In 2010, President Obama announced $475 million in new funding for the GLRI, the largest
investment in the Great Lakes in two decades. The Great Lakes provide over 30 million
Americans with drinking water and underpin a multi-billion  dollar economy. Activities funded
through this initiative will ensure that the Great Lakes meet CWA standards of safely consuming
fish and swimming at our beaches, ensuring safe drinking water, and providing a healthy
ecosystem for fish and wildlife. The GLRI Action  Plan, released in February 2010 by the Great
Lakes area governors, is driving progress, with goals, objectives, performance measures, and
targets in five focus areas. These include:

       •    Cleaning up the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes, including toxic hot spot areas
           of concern.

       •    Combating invasive species.

       •    Promoting nearshore health by protecting watersheds from polluted run-off.

       •    Restoring wetlands and other habitats.

       •    Working with strategic partners on accountability, monitoring and  evaluation, and
           outreach.

The GLRI Action Plan, which  covers FY 2010 through FY 2014, was developed by a task force
of 16 federal departments and agencies to implement the President's historic initiative.

The Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) has been developed to ensure accountability
and provide public access to information about GLRI projects.58 Almost $1 billion in requests
from 1,060 proposals followed EPA's announcement of the first GLRI Request for Proposals. By
the  end of FY 2010, EPA had obligated more than $152 million in 276 grant awards to states,
tribes, communities, and  other non-federal organizations and more than $244 million in 15
57 Coastal Wetland Trends 1998-2004:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/gSandT/NationalReports/StatusTrendsWetlandsCoastalWatershedsEastemUS1998to2
004.pdf.
58 A GLAS demonstration video, showing key information and capabilities, is available at: http://greatlakesrestoration.us/?p=851.

                                           1255

-------
interagency agreements with other federal agencies. Most of the grant awards resulted from the
Request for Proposals. From an additional $9 million, the USAGE obligated $5.6 million for
emergency Asian carp construction work. Funding is directed to on-the-ground Great Lakes
restoration projects in the GLRI focus areas. EPA is taking steps to direct a greater proportion of
GLRI funding to on-the-ground action in future years. GLRI funding has also been directed
toward projects to keep Asian carp and other invasive species out  of the Great Lakes. Progress
implementing actions in the focus areas will be reported in FY 2011 with environmental
improvement demonstrated in the future as projects begun in fall 2010 get well  underway.

The GLRI Action Plan includes 28 performance measures to track progress toward meeting the
goals and objectives for each of the GLRI focus areas. Eleven of these measures were included
in the President's FY 2011 Budget published in February 2010. Results for these measures are
expected to be reported through GLAS in FY 2011. (Annual budget measures are provided in
box below).
                                         1256

-------
                   New Great Lakes Measures for FY 2011 Reporting
                         Established in the GLRI Action Plan and
                           FY2011 Congressional Justification
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions necessary for
delisting have been implemented (cumulative): (1 area of concern).

Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem: (1.1 species).

Acres managed for populations of invasive species  controlled to a target level (cumulative):
(1,000 acres).

Number of multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to practice responses
carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions (cumulative): (4 responses/plans).

Five-year average annual loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (metric tons per year) from
tributaries draining targeted watersheds: (0 percent  reduced loadings of phosphorus).

Percentage of beaches meeting bacteria standards 95 percent or more of beach days: (86 percent
beaches).

Acres in Great Lakes watershed with U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation
practices implemented to reduce erosion, nutrients,  and/or pesticide loading: (2 percent increased
acres).

Percent of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and  endangered species self-sustaining
in the wild (cumulative): (33 percent of populations).

Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored, and enhanced
(cumulative): (5,000 acres).

Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored, and enhanced
(cumulative): (15,000 acres):

Number of species delisted due to recovery: (0 species).	

Chesapeake Bay

The Chesapeake Bay Program partners have achieved 51 percent, 67 percent, and 69 percent of
the goals to implement nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction practices, respectively
(based on Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3 Watershed Model 2009 Progress Run released in
March 2010 and used to track goals established in 2003; beginning in FY 2011, new goals will
be tracked based on TMDLs finalized in December 2010, using the Phase 5.3 Watershed Model
2010 Progress Run, to be released in March 2011).  Although program partners have achieved
significant reductions in nutrient pollution loads from wastewater treatment facilities, pollution
from agricultural operations is not being reduced quickly enough, and nutrient and sediment
pollution due to runoff from existing and new development is increasing. Despite widespread
financial and technical assistance, farmer participation remains below the necessary levels to

                                          1257

-------
meet agricultural load reduction targets. The program is employing additional resources from
Farm Bill59 funding to address this challenge. To address concerns about increasing
urban/suburban runoff, EPA developed a stormwater best practices guide.60 To address both
challenges, EPA provided additional resources through a series of grants. Specifically, the
Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program grants to the states; Implementation
grants to states; and Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grants and Small Watershed
grants to states, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations.

Long Island Sound

Restoration and protection of Long Island Sound continues to exceed expectations, as measured
by point source nitrogen reduction, habitat restoration/protection, and diadromous fish passage.
The states continue to make progress in upgrading wastewater treatment plants to control
nitrogen discharges, improving water quality, and reducing the threat of hypoxia  from excess
nitrogen under a TMDL. As of 2009, the last reporting period, the states have reduced nitrogen
from point sources by nearly 53,000 Ib per day from baseline loads. New York City and
Westchester County are upgrading wastewater treatment plants for nitrogen removal in support
of the TMDL. The Long Island Sound Study program is ahead of its plans for habitat
restoration/protection and fish passage in 2010, restoring or protecting a total of 2,975 acres of
habitat and reopening 160 miles of river corridor to fish passage. The program continues to make
progress by working with local communities, businesses, and organizations to match or exceed
limited federal funding for critical habitat restoration, protection, enhancement, and fish passage
projects.
59 http://www.baviournal.com/article.cfm?article=3348.
60 http://www.epa.gov/owow keep/NPS/chesbay502/.
                                           1258

-------
As the Long Island Sound Study program continues to reduce point and nonpoint source
pollution, the total cost of necessary water quality infrastructure improvements remains a
challenge. A planned revision to the TMDL to include Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Vermont will require close cooperation and significant financial commitment by those states.
EPA is involving these upstream states in TMDL discussions to evaluate ways and means of
achieving water quality standards in an economically realistic and environmentally responsible
manner.

Columbia River

On September 23, 2010, EPA issued the Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan.
This plan, developed over two years with the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group,
a collaborative group consisting of tribal, state, local, regional, and federal government,
nonprofit groups, industry, and citizens, provides a five-year framework for a holistic basin-wide
approach to reduce toxics in the Columbia River Basin to protect human health and the
ecosystem. The Action Plan provides a list of 61 actions, in five initiatives:

       •  Increase public understanding and political commitment to toxics reduction.
       •  Increase toxics reduction actions.
       •  Increase monitoring for source identification and then focus attention to reduce
          toxics.
       •  Develop regional, multi-agency research and monitoring.
       •  Develop a data management system to share toxics information around the basin.

At the end of FY 2010, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership—made up of states, EPA,
and other partners—improved more than  16,000 acres of habitat in the Lower  Columbia River
watershed and state and federal partners remediated 20 acres of highly contaminated sediments.
For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/regionlO/columbia.

South Florida and the Florida Keys

Monroe County,  Florida, continues to make significant progress reducing nutrient loadings into
the Florida Keys marine ecosystem by providing better sewage treatment. Property owners using
cesspits and septic tanks, as well as package plants not achieving state requirements, are required
to hook up to wastewater facilities meeting advanced wastewater treatment or  best available
technology standards. Along with the significant nutrient reductions, the human health risk from
bacteria and viruses is expected to diminish as cesspits and septic tanks are eliminated. As of
June 30, 2010, about 34,288 (or 46 percent) of the households  and business owners in the Florida
Keys are connected to a centralized sewer system. Identifying funding to fully implement the
Florida Keys Wastewater Master Plan continues to be a challenge. Monroe County and local
entities are struggling to fund sewer projects with reduced revenue from taxes, assessments,
bonds, grants, state revolving funds, and other sources. As co-chair of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) Water Quality Protection Program, EPA will continue
to work closely with states, local governments, and federal agencies to identify funds. These
                                          1259

-------
improvements helped EPA achieve its FY 2010 goal to maintain the overall water quality of the
near shore and coastal waters of the FKNMS.

Puget Sound

The Puget Sound NEP made considerable progress in FY 2010 by awarding prior-year (FY
2009) and present-year (FY 2010) funding to local governments and tribes for watershed projects
identified as priorities for Puget Sound restoration and protection, outreach and education efforts,
and targeted scientific and technical studies. For FY 2010 and beyond, EPA solicited
applications for "lead organization" entities to implement comprehensive basin-wide programs to
address the major threats and challenges facing the Puget Sound ecosystem. This structure will
allow for greater efficiency and faster delivery of funds for Puget Sound work in 2011 and the
years to come.

The results from recent increases  in Puget Sound funding and work are already beginning to
show results. In 2010, EPA reported 4,311 acres of Puget Sound habitat restored or protected.
This is more than three times greater than prior years' annual results and shows the program is
achieving a cumulative total of 10,062 habitat acres restored or protected since 2007. Significant
gains are also being made in restoring shellfish beds to a harvest-safe condition. For 2010 EPA
reported 2,723 acres of shellfish beds where harvest restrictions were lifted, bringing the
cumulative total since 2007 to 4,453 acres.

Gulf of Mexico

The Gulf Alliance governance structure is uniquely poised to support assessing, monitoring, and
remediating impacts and implementing ecosystem and economic long-term recovery. The Gulf
of Mexico Program continues to underpin the Gulf States Governors' Alliance with specific
challenges in the Governors' Action Plan II, a five-year plan designed to enhance the
environmental and economic health of the Gulf of Mexico. With the leverage of the Federal
Workgroup partnership, 87 percent of the near-term actions in the plan are on track, and 6
percent have been completed. Overall, 93 percent of actions are on track for FY 2010. The Gulf
Program funded 12 cooperative agreements that support collaborative regional partnership
projects.

As part of the interagency Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi River Watershed Nutrient Task Force,
EPA strives to reduce or make significant progress toward reducing the hypoxic zone to a size of
5,000 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) or less by 2015, based on a 5-year running average,
by implementing specific, practical, and cost-effective voluntary actions by all states and tribes.
The size of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone as measured in 2010 was 20,000 square kilometers
(7,722  square miles), which is one of the largest measured dead zones. The Gulf Alliance is
addressing  hypoxia by developing consistent estuarine nutrient criteria, nutrient reduction
strategies, and a sediment management master plan; collaborating to address the Federal
Standard; restoring coastal ecosystems; and establishing partnerships in the Mississippi River
Basin Watershed.
                                          1260

-------
Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research
                FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 4.4
                        (in thousands)
                     Objective 4
                     $431,813.40
                       22%
                   Goal 4 Total Obligations = $1,952,626.3
   FY 2010 Performance
  Measures: Objective 4.4

        Met = 12
       Not Met = 3
    Data Available After
    February?, 2011 = 3*
       (Total = 18)
*
 This total includes 2 performance
measures for which the Agency did
not collect data.
EPA's research programs provide a sound scientific foundation for decisions to protect, sustain,
and restore human and ecosystem health. Examples of FY 2010 research accomplishments are
below.

EPA Tool for Water Utilities Wins Research and Development 100 Award

Abnormal data from monitoring water quality in a drinking water system can indicate the onset
of a contamination incident. For this reason, water utilities must be able to rapidly and accurately
identify such results. Software that can interpret water quality data in real time can greatly
enhance detection. EPA partnered with the DOE's Sandia National Laboratories to develop the
CANARY data analysis software to assist water utilities in detecting contamination. CANARY
evaluates standard water quality data (e.g., pH, free chlorine, total organic carbon) over time and
uses mathematical and statistical techniques to identify the onset of atypical water quality
incidents.

CANARY was piloted in five U.S. cites (Cincinnati, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and
San Francisco) and Singapore, using data sets that are unique to each system. In FY  2010, EPA's
CANARY event detection software was released as a free download to water utilities. The
software, in conjunction with a network of sensors, can rapidly detect contamination and provide
information for making effective decisions and managing consequences. EPA and DOE
researchers responsible for this software were awarded an R&D 100 Award for 2010, which
recognizes the top 100 high-technology products  of the year.

International Workshop of Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs)

EPA held  an international workshop that brought together over 250 scientists to share the results
of their research on PFCs. These persistent environmental pollutants are of considerable interest
                                           1261

-------
to the public and EPA is working to characterize their toxicity, to explore their modes of actions,
to develop analytical methods for their detection in various media, to investigate the fate and
transport of these chemicals in the environment, and to construct computational models to
predict their behaviors. Collectively, scientists have made significant strides in these research
areas.

Among areas presented by EPA scientists were the development and evaluation of methods and
their application in experimentation for evaluating the degradation of fluorotelomer-based
polymer products in soil materials and from wastewater treatment plants, as well as the release of
PFCs from  articles of commerce and their potential toxicity. These findings are being used by
EPA program and regional offices and other communities to help characterize the potential
exposures and risks to PFCs. For additional information, see:
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/pfaa  days  3/.

Tool Allows Pacific Northwest to Understand Changes  in Stream Flow

 In FY 2010, EPA developed a tool to help decision-makers assess the vulnerabilities of climate
change on natural  ecosystems, including endangered species, agriculture, drinking water, water
quality, and water supply. Using national climate scenarios developed by EPA scientists, this
project provides a methodology for assessing the vulnerability of regional stream flow to future
climate change. This tool was applied to the state of Oregon's waterways; and, EPA scientists
are currently developing a stream flow vulnerability assessment for the entire Pacific Northwest.
Future work will include similar vulnerability assessments for all EPA regions across the nation.

Science Assessments Completed for CO and PM

EPA's HHRA program produces peer-reviewed products that the Agency and others use to
support regulatory standards and manage environmental cleanups and risk management efforts.
In FY 2010, EPA published evaluations of the scientific literature on the potential human health
effects associated with ambient exposures to CO and PM. These final integrated science
assessments for CO and PM support the Agency's periodic review of the NAAQS)and will
provide the scientific basis to inform EPA decisions related to the review of the current CO and
PM standards.

Progress Developing Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessments for Dioxin
and Formaldehyde

The IRIS Program is one of the main components of the HHRA Program.  In FY 2010, EPA
completed 14 draft health assessments of chemicals for interagency science consultation and
external peer review, including external peer reviews of dioxin and formaldehyde. In addition, 10
health assessments were completed and posted on the  IRIS webpage for public dissemination, an
increased number  of postings compared to the last five years.
                                          1262

-------
Tool Models Connections between Climate and Land Use

Climate and land use change are major components that are related to and affected by global
environmental change. Specifically, land use, such as residential housing, roads, and impervious
surfaces, affect climate change. Population growth and demographic changes also impact the
climate. In FY 2010, EPA scientists updated the existing Integrated Climate and Land Use
Scenarios (ICLUS) tool, which incorporates Global Information System (GIS) data. This tool
enables users to incorporate land use, impervious surface changes, and population growth into
climate impact studies and inform decisions. ICLUS data are currently being used in the
Chesapeake Bay to spatially allocate emissions, estimate future health impacts, model
stormwater runoff, examine and monitor the vulnerability to wildlife and the ecosystem, and
project nonpoint source pollution impacts on the Bay.

EPA Provides Searchable Database on Chemical Hazard, Exposure, and Toxicity Data

EPA released an online database that makes it easier to find chemical information online. In
2010, the Toxicity Reference Database (ToxRefDB) was released to the public and electronically
captures  30 years  and $2 billion of animal  testing data previously available only in paper
documents. It includes more than 3,000 studies on more than 500 chemicals. ToxRefDB
consolidates chemical testing data that are costly and time consuming, and that have historically
been scattered throughout different sources. ToxRefDB provides the public with access to all
available hazard, exposure, and risk-assessment data associated with chemical, as well as
previously unpublished studies related to cancer, reproductive toxicity,  and developmental
toxicity.  For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxrefdb/.

Silver Nanoparticles: Setting Research Priorities

In 2010,  EPA released the external draft of the Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in
Disinfectant Spray.61 This study is one of a series of nanomaterial case  studies used to identify
and prioritize the future direction of nanotechnology research. This work refines previous
approaches to illustrate known and potential risks associated with applications of nanosilver.
Like the  similar nanotitanium dioxide study, this nanosilver study will help EPA address the
risks of using nanomaterials. For additional information, see:
www. epa. gov/osp/bosc/pdf/nano 1005 summ. pdf.

Tea Helps Clean the Environment

Research has shown powerful health benefits of antioxidant chemicals found in tea, wine, and
red grape pomace (a major byproduct  of wine making). EPA scientists are discovering how to
also tap antioxidants for a cleaner environment. EPA scientists are using innovative ways to
produce nanoparticles using green chemistry rather than toxic chemicals. In FY 2010, EPA
scientists used brewed tea and ferric nitrate to develop nano-scale zero-valet iron, which is useful
for cleaning contaminated groundwater. The tea replaced sodium borohydride,  a hazardous
chemical with toxic properties, and the process showed no significant signs of toxicity when
61 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=226723
                                          1263

-------
applied to human skin cells in a petri dish. This research was identified as one of Green
Chemistry's "hot articles" because it is frequently viewed by and cited among the scientific
community.62 By demonstrating green alternatives to hazardous chemicals, solvents, and high
temperature processes, EPA hopes to encourage scientists, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers to
find inherently safer and more sustainable ways to produce and use chemicals. For additional
information, see: http://epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/scinews tea-nano.htm
62 www.rsc.org/greenchem
                                           1264

-------
                               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: 4.1: CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE RISKS

By 2014, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
PMs Met
11
PMs Not Met
7
Data Available After February 7,
2011
8
Total PMs
26
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.1: Reduce Chemical Risks
Reduce Chemical Risks

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, achieve a 50 percent cumulative reduction from 1998 in risks posed by TSCA Inventory Update Rule-reported chemicals, as
measured by the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators model's production-adjusted risk based score.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(239) Annual number of chemicals
with final values for AEGL
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target
6
Actual
4
FY2010
Target
14
Actual
15

Unit
Chemicals
Baseline - Baseline is 37 chemicals from 1996 through 2008 according to Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic's (OPPT's) AEGL
Chemical Status database.
(241) Annual number of chemicals
with proposed values for AEGL
24
33
24
28
18
27
4
N/A
Chemicals
Baseline - Baseline is 37 chemicals from 1996 through 2008 according to OPPT's AEGL Chemical Status database.
                                                        1265

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(250) Reduction in the current year
production-adjusted risk-based
score of releases and transfers of
toxic chemicals from
manufacturing facilities
FY 2007
Target
4.0


Actual
13.09


FY 2008
Target
3.5


Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011


FY 2009
Target
3.2


Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011


FY2010
Target
3.0


Actual
Data
Avail
10/2012



Unit
Risk
Screening
Environmen
tal
Indicators
(RSEI) Rel
Risk
Baseline - Baseline is zero percent in 2001 according to RSEI Model. RSEI results have historically experienced a two-year data lag.
(270) Annual number of HPV
chemicals with Risk Based
Prioritizations completed through
the Chemical Assessment and
Management Program (ChAMP)






150


151


180


69


230


0


HPV
Chemicals


Baseline - Baseline is zero chemicals in 2007 according to OPPT internal risk-based prioritization (RBP) tracking files.
Explanation - Production of RBPs and hazard-based prioritizations (HBPs) suspended to focus on development of more rapid chemical
risk reduction actions. Change in program strategy occurred too late to discontinue the FY 2010 measure.
(282) Annual reduction in the
production adjusted risk based
score of releases and transfers of
IUR chemicals from
manufacturing facilities
2.6


5.09


2.5


Data
Avail
10/2011


2.4


Data
Avail
10/2011


2.2


Data
Avail
10/2012


% RSEI Rel
Risk


Baseline - Baseline is zero percent in 1998 according to RSEI Model. RSEI results have historically experienced a two-year data lag.
(296) Annual number of Moderate
Production Volume (MPV)
chemicals with Hazard Based
Prioritizations completed through
the ChAMP




55

14

100

69

325

0

MPV
Chemicals

1266

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - Baseline is zero chemicals in FY07 according to OPPT internal HBP Tracking files.
Explanation - Production of RBPs and HBPs suspended to focus on development of more rapid chemical risk reduction actions. Change in
program strategy occurred too late to cancel FY 2010 measure.
(HC1) Annual number of hazard
characterizations completed for
FIPV chemicals






230
270
Hazardous
Units
Baseline - Baseline is 1,095 chemicals in FY 2009 according to OPPT FIPV Hazard Characterizations Tracking files.
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2014,  ensure that 10 percent of new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose unreasonable risks to workers,
consumers, or the environment.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(247) Percent of new chemicals or
organisms introduced into
commerce that do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers,
consumers, or the environment
FY 2007
Target
100




Actual
100




FY 2008
Target
100




Actual
100




FY 2009
Target
100




Actual
97




FY2010
Target
100




Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011



Unit
Percent




Baseline - Baseline is zero percent from 2004-2008 according to Annual OPPT report, "Study Comparing PMNs/LVEs to Related 8(e)
Chemicals."
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, remove 330,000 grams of mercury from use in international hospitals by eliminating or substituting mercury containing
products and equipment compared to a 2006 baseline of 0 grams.
                                                          1267

-------
Strategic Target (4)
Through 2014,  maintain elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by ensuring that that the percent of
children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl) remains at zero, compared to a 1999-2004 of 1.4 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(009) Cumulative number of
certified RRP firms
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
100,000
Actual
59,143

Unit
Firms
Baseline - Baseline is zero firms in 2009 according to Federal Lead-Based Paint Program (FLPP) information system.
Explanation - EPA was unable to meet its FY 2010 annual target due to the lower than expected firm certifications as of the April 2010
effective date of the RRP rule (despite EPA's and industry's extensive efforts on outreach and compliance assistance), as well as a
subsequent stay on enforcement of certification paperwork requirements for renovation firms from June to October.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, reduce to 26 percent the percent difference in the geometric mean blood lead level in low-income children 1-5 years old as
compared to the geometric mean for non-low income children 1-5 years old, compared to a 1999-2002 baseline of 32 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(008) Percent of children (aged 1-5
years) with elevated blood lead
levels (>5 ug/dl)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
3.5
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2012

Unit
Percent
Baseline - Baseline is 4.1 percent from 2003/4 sampling data according to CDC National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey
(NHANES). Results reported biennially.
(10D) 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
No Target
Established
Biennial
29
23.5
No Target
Established
Biennial
28
Data
Avail
10/2012
Percent
                                                          1268

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Baseline - Baseline is 32 percent from 1999-2002 according to CDC National Health and Nutritional Evaluation
Results reported biennially.
Actual

Unit
Survey (NHANES).
Strategic Target (6)
By 2014, reduce the percentage of children with blood lead levels above 5ug/dl to 4 percent or less, compared with a 1999 through
2004 baseline of 7.4 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(196) Percent of children (aged 1-5
years) with elevated blood lead
levels (>10 ug/dl)
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2008
Target
0.5
Actual
N/A
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY2010
Target
0
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2012

Unit
Percent
Baseline - Baseline is 3 10,000 children in FY 2002 according to CDC NHANES. Results reported biennially.
Strategic Target (7)
By 2014, through work with international partners, eliminate the use of lead in gasoline in the remaining 16 countries that still use lead
as an additive, affecting more than 700 million people.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(Ar5) Number of countries
completing phase out of leaded
gasoline (incremental)
FY 2007
Target
20
Actual
13
FY 2008
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2009
Target
4
Actual
2
FY2010
Target
3
Actual
j

Unit
Countries
Baseline - As of July 2008, 16 countries had not phased lead out of gasoline.
Strategic Target (8)
By 2014, through work with international partners, more than 4.4 billion people will have access to low-sulfur fuel in 75 countries.
                                                            1269

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(Ar8) Number of countries
introducing low sulfur in fuels
(incremental)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
2
Actual
5
FY 2009
Target
3
Actual
2
FY2010
Target
9
Actual
5

Unit
Countries
Baseline - As of July 8, 2008, 43 countries had introduced low-sulfur fuel.
Explanation: Of the targeted nine countries, only Chile, Georgia, Armenia, United Arab Emirates, and Kazakhstan increased access to
low-sulfur fuels.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
Strategic Target (1)
Between 2009 to 2014, the annual number of accidents will not exceed 188, which is equal to the average annual number of accidents
that occurred between 2004 to 2008.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(CH2) Number of risk
management plan audits and
inspections conducted
FY 2007
Target
400
Actual
628
FY 2008
Target
400
Actual
628
FY 2009
Target
400
Actual
654
FY2010
Target
400
Actual
618

Unit
Audits
Baseline - 2,820 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2002 and FY 2006.
Explanation - EPA headquarters has been working with the regions to increase the number of inspections. In FY 2010, the regions were
asked to focus on identifying non-filers, inspecting those facilities, and getting them in compliance with the Risk Management Plan
requirements. The regions were able to complete more inspections and recognizing this, EPA has increased the performance target for FY
2011.
                                                       1270

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.3: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Strategic Target (1)
Through 2014, reduce and maintain the concentration of pesticides detected in the general population by 50 percent. Based on the
most recent urinary metabolites reported in the 1999 to 2002 CDC's NHANES data. Measure is based on NHANES 50th percentile
concentrations for all seven organophosphate analytes reported: Dimethylphosphate < 0.58 ug/L; Dimethylthiophosphate =  1.06 ug/L;
Dimethyldithiophosphate < 0.10  ug/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 ug/L; Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5 ug/L; Diethyldithiophosphate <
0.10 ug/L; and 3, 5, 6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol = 1.9 ug/L).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(266) Percent reduction in
concentrations of pesticides
detected in general population
FY 2007
Target
10
Actual
5
FY 2008
Target
30
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY2010
Target
50
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - According to biennially reported NHANES data for FY 1999 to 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.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, reduce children's exposure to rodenticides by 40 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(091) Percent of decisions
completed on time (on or before
PRIA or negotiated due date)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
99
Actual
99.7

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2008, 99.9 percent of decisions were completed on time according to EPA internal data.
                                                           1271

-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, improve the health of those who work in or around pesticides by reducing the number of moderate to severe incidents for six
acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest number of incidents by 50 percent. (Based on 326 moderate and severe incidents
reported to the Poison Control Center (PCC) National Poison Data System (NPDS) 1999 to 2003, the six pesticides of concern are:
chlorpyrifos; diazinon, malathion; pyrethrins; 2,4-D and carbofuron).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(143) Percentage of agricultural
acres treated with reduced-risk
pesticides
FY 2007
Target
18
Actual
20
FY 2008
Target
18.5
Actual
21
FY 2009
Target
20
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2011
FY2010
Target
21
Actual
Data
Avail
10/2012

Unit
Percent
Baseline - The baseline for acres treated is 3.6 percent 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. Each year's total acre-treatments, as reported by Doane Marketing
Research, Inc., serve as the basis for computing the percentage of acre-treatments using reduced risk pesticides. Acre-treatments count the
total number of pesticides treatments each acre receives each year.
(267) Percent reduction in
moderate to severe incidents for
six acutely toxic agricultural
pesticides with the highest incident
rate


No Target
Established
Biennial
30
N/A
No Target
Established
N/A
Percent
Baseline - The rates for moderate to severe incidents for exposure to agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates base on FY
1999 to FY 2003 biennially reported data are: chlorpyrifos, 67 incidents; diazinon, 51 incidents; malathion, 36 incidents; pyrethrins, 29
incidents; 2, 4-D, 27 incidents; carbofuran, 24 incidents, based on data from PCCs' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), and
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR).
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, complete 100 percent of Tier  1 screening to determine whether any of the first group of pesticide chemicals have the
potential to interact with estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone systems; complete validation of Tier 2 tests, which are designed to
assess whether substances cause endocrine effects and provide data to support hazard identification and risk assessment; and based on
review of Tier 1 screening results, initiate Tier 2 testing for pesticide chemicals, as appropriate.
                                                           1272

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(257) Cumulative number of
assays that have been validated
FY 2007
Target
8/20
Actual
3/20
FY 2008
Target
13/20
Actual
12/20
FY 2009
Target
14/19
Actual
13/19
FY2010
Target
19/19
Actual
13/19

Unit
Assays
Baseline - Zero assays validated in FY 2005.
Explanation - Contractor delays, international coordination, and technical problems associated with this new area of science contributed to
delays in completing additional assays. Remaining assays and future assay validation efforts will be tracked under a new measure (starting
in FY 2011).
No Strategic Target
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(265) Improve or maintain a rate
of incidents per 100,000 potential
risk events in population
occupationally exposed to
pesticides
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2009
Target
<=3.5/
100,000
Actual
N/A
FY2010
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
N/A

Unit
Incidents
Baseline - There were 1,388 incidents out of 39,850,000 potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides in FY 2003
according to PCC data.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.4: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, no urban watersheds will exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for four key pesticides of concern.
                                                         1273

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(Oil) Number of Product
Reregi strati on Decisions
FY 2007
Target
545
Actual
962
FY 2008
Target
1,075
Actual
1,194
FY 2009
Target
2,000
Actual
1,770
FY2010
Target
1,500
Actual
1,712

Unit
Decisions
Baseline - The FY 2005 actual is 501 product re-registrations according to internal tracking as part of the product reregi strati on process.
(164) Number of pesticide
registration review dockets opened






70
75
Dockets
Baseline - In 2008, 71 registration review work dockets were opened according to EPA internal data.
(230) Number of pesticide
registration review final work
plans completed






70
70
Work Plans
Baseline - In 2008, 47 final work plans for registered pesticides were reviewed according to EPA internal data.
(268) Percent of urban watersheds
that do not exceed EPA aquatic
life benchmarks for three key
pesticides of concern (diazinon,
chlorpyrifos and malathion)


25, 25,
30
40, 0, 30
No Target
Established
Biennial
5, 0, 20
6.7, 0, 33
Percent
Baseline - Based on FY 1992 to 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program, urban watersheds sampled that exceeded benchmarks are: diazinon, 73 percent; chlorpyrifos, 37 percent;
and malathion, 30 percent.
Explanation - Mixed results reported from samples.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, no agricultural watersheds will exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides of
concern.
                                                           1274

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(269) Percent of agricultural
watersheds that do not exceed
EPA aquatic life benchmarks for
two key pesticides of concern
(azinphos-methyl and
chlorpyrifos)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
0, 10
Actual
0,8

Unit
Percent
Baseline - Based on FY 1992 to 2001 data from the watersheds sampled by the USGS NAWQA program, agricultural watersheds that
exceeded aquatic life benchmarks are 18 percent for azinphos-methyl and 18 percent for chlorpyrifos.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.1.5: Realize the Benefits from Pesticide Use
Realize the Benefits from Pesticide Use

Strategic Target (1)
Through  2014, continue to maintain a healthy and affordable food supply, and continue to ensure the availability of safe pesticides that
annually  provide an estimated $26 billion in value to agricultural production.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(240) Maintain timeliness of
Section 18 Emergency Exemption
Decisions
FY 2007
Target
45
Actual
36.60
FY 2008
Target
45
Actual
34
FY 2009
Target
45
Actual
40
FY2010
Target
45
Actual
50

Unit
Days
Baseline - Baseline for S18 decisions is 45 days in 2005 according to EPA internal data.
Explanation - Target not met due to more complicated SI 8s.
(272) Billions of dollars in crop
loss avoided by ensuring that
effective pesticides are available to
address pest infestations
1.5B
1.5B
1.5B
1.5B
1.5B
1.5B
1.5B

Loss
Avoided
                                                           1275

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Baseline - According to EPA and USD A
in avoided crop loss.
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
data for the years FY 2000-2005, emergency exemptions issued by EPA resulted in $1.5 billion
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2014, annually continue to avoid $900 million in termite structural damage from termite infestations by ensuring that safe
and effective pesticides are available for termite control.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(271) 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
Target
900 M
Actual
900 M
FY 2008
Target
900 M
Actual
900 M
FY 2009
Target
900 M
Actual
900 M
FY2010
Target
900 M
Actual
900 M

Unit
Dollars
Baseline - 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.
Explanation - Methodology is the same; however, the data available for the results calculation was better and far exceeded expectations.
OBJECTIVE: 4.2: COMMUNITIES

Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
PMs Met
9
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
1
Total PMs
10
                                                           1276

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.1: Sustain Community Health
Sustain Community Health

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce the air, water, and land impacts of new growth and development through the use of smart growth strategies in 40
communities, which includes state and local governments and standard setting organizations that will achieve significant measurable
environmental and/or public health improvements.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.2: Restore Community Health through Collaborative Problem-Solving
Restore Community Health through Collaborative Problem-Solving

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, 30 communities with potential environmental justice concerns will achieve significant measurable environmental or public
health improvement triennially through the Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program or through other EPA
community assistance programs utilizing collaborative problem-solving strategies.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields
Assess and Clean Up Brownfields

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, conduct environmental assessments at 18,800 (cumulative) Brownfield properties.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(B29) Brownfield properties
assessed (ARRA measure)*
FY 2007
Target
1,000
Actual
1,371
FY 2008
Target
1,000
Actual
1,453
FY 2009
Target
1,000
Actual
1,295
FY2010
Target
1,000
Actual
1,326
322*

Unit
Properties
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in 322 additional properties assessed. More
information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv.



Baseline - In FY 2007, EPA's Brownfields program assessed 1,371 properties.
Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments
from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012.
                                                         1277

-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, make an additional 11,700 acres of Brownfield properties ready for reuse from the 2007 baseline.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(B32) Number of properties
cleaned up using Brownfields
funding (ARRA measure)*
FY 2007
Target
60
Actual

FY 2008
Target
60
Actual
78
FY 2009
Target
60
Actual
93
FY2010
Target
60
Actual
109
13*

Unit
Properties
  *The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in 13 additional properties cleaned up. More
  information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recoverv/plans.htmltfquarterly.
  Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program cleaned up 77 properties.
  Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments
  from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012.
(B33) Acres of Brownfields
properties made ready for reuse
(ARRA measure)*
UD
2,399
225
4,404
1,000
2,660
1,000
3,627
30*
Acres
  *The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA, which resulted in 30 additional properties made ready for reuse. More
  information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recoverv/plans.htmltfquarterly.
  Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program made 2,399 acres ready for reuse.
  Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments
  from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, leverage $17.7 billion (cumulative) in assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment funding at Brownfields properties.
                                                         1278

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(B34) Jobs leveraged from
Brownfields activities (ARRA
measure)*
FY 2007
Target
5,000
Actual
5,209
FY 2008
Target
5,000
Actual
5,484
FY 2009
Target
5,000
Actual
6,490
FY2010
Target
5,000
Actual
5,177
161*

Unit
Jobs
*The program this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in 161 additional jobs leveraged. More
information on ARRA results can be found at: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv.



Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program leveraged 5,209 jobs.
(B3 7) Billions of dollars of
cleanup and redevelopment funds
leveraged at Brownfields sites.
(ARRA measure)*
0.9
1.693
*The program this measure supports received funds \
leveraged. More information on ARRA results can b
0.9
1.546
0.9
1.06
0.9
1.4
.042*
Billion
Dollars
Tom ARRA in FY 2010, which resulted in an additional 0.042 billion dollars
e found at: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv.


Baseline - In FY 2007, the Brownfields program leveraged $1.7 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
Explanation - During FY 2009 and FY 2010 the Brownfields program made a concerted effort to gather and include accomplishments
from the program's prior years. EPA has substantial trend data available and will be adjusting targets for FY 2012.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.4: Sustain and Restore the United States - Mexico Border Environmental Health
Sustain and Restore the United States - Mexico Border Environmental Health

Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, remove 152.8 million pounds of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loadings from the U.S-Mexico Border area since 2003.

Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, provide safe drinking water to  50 percent of homes in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking water
in 2003.
                                                         1279

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(xb2) Number of additional homes
provided safe drinking water in the
U.S. -Mexico border area that
lacked access to safe drinking
water in 2003 (cumulative)
FY 2007
Target
1,200

Actual
1,276

FY 2008
Target
2,500

Actual
5,162

FY 2009
Target
1,500

Actual
1,584

FY2010
Target
28,434

Actual
52,130


Unit
Homes

Baseline - In 2003, 98,515 homes lacked access to safe drinking water.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014,  provide adequate wastewater sanitation to 50 percent of homes in the U.S.-Mexico border area that lacked  access to
wastewater sanitation in 2003.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(xb3) Number of additional homes
provided adequate wastewater
sanitation in the U.S. -Mexico
border area that lacked access to
wastewater sanitation in 2003
(cumulative)
FY 2007
Target
70,750



Actual
73,475



FY 2008
Target
15,000



Actual
31,686



FY 2009
Target
105,500



Actual
43,594



FY2010
Target
246,175



Actual
254,125




Unit
Homes



Baseline - In 2003, 690,723 homes lacked access to wastewater sanitation.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, clean up abandoned tire and hazardous waste sites in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.5: Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
Sustain and Restore Pacific Island Territories
                                                          1280

-------
Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, 95 percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories served by community drinking water systems will
receive drinking water that is available 24 hours per day and meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout the
year.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(pil) Percent of population in each
of the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories (served by community
water systems) that meet all
applicable health-based drinking
water standards, measured on a
four quarter rolling average basis
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
72
Actual
79
FY 2009
Target
73
Actual
80
FY2010
Target
73
Actual
82

Unit
Percent
Population
Baseline - In 2005, 95 percent of American Samoa; 10 percent of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and 80 percent of
Guam were served by community water systems receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, the sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply 90 percent of the time with permit limits for
BOD and TSS.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(pi2) Percent of sewage treatment
plants in the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories comply with permit
limits for BOD and TSS
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
67
Actual
67
FY 2009
Target
62
Actual
65
FY2010
Target
62
Actual
52

Unit
Percent
Time
Baseline - In 2005, sewage treatment plants complied with permit limits 59 percent of the time.
Explanation: Wastewater treatment plants on Guam were in compliance only 23 percent of the time in FY10, which dragged down the
average of the Pacific Island Territories.
                                                          1281

-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the beach safety program will be open and safe for
swimming 96 percent of days of the beach season.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(pi3) 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
Target



Actual



FY 2008
Target
70


Actual
80


FY 2009
Target
80


Actual
81


FY2010
Target
80


Actual
80



Unit
Percent
Days


Baseline - In 2005, 84 percent of beach days were open and safe for swimming.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.2.6: Reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Exposure
Reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Exposure

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce mean maternal blood levels of PCBs (measured as Aroclor 1260) in indigenous populations in the Arctic to 3.0 |ig/l.

Strategic Target (2)
By  2014,  reduce mean maternal blood levels of chlordane (measured  as the metabolites oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor)  in
indigenous populations in the Arctic to 3.0 |ig/l.

OBJECTIVE: 4.3: RESTORE AND PROTECT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS

Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
PMs Met
21
PMs Not Met
6
Data Available After February 7,
2011
1
Total PMs
28
                                                         1282

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.1: Increase Wetlands
Increase Wetlands

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, working  with partners, achieve a net annual increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands nationwide with additional focus on
biological and functional measures and assessment of wetland condition.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(4G) Number of acres restored and
improved, under the 5 -Star,
National Estauary Program (NEP),
319, and Great Waterbody
programs (cumulative)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
75,000
Actual
82,875
FY 2009
Target
88,000
Actual
103,507
FY2010
Target
110,000
Actual
130,000

Unit
Acres
Baseline - 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 six-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, 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.: 2006).
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, in partnership with the USAGE, states, and tribes will have achieved "no net loss" of wetlands each year under the CWA,
Section 404 regulatory program, beginning in 2007.
                                                          1283

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(4E) In partnership with the
USAGE, states, and tribes, achieve
no net loss of wetlands each year
under the CWA Section 404
regulatory program
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Data Not
Available
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
No Net
Loss
FY2010
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
No net
loss

Unit
Acres
Baseline -No Net Loss: FY2003: 1:1. (ELI 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the U.S., p. 24.
http://www.epa.sov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ELIMitisation2005.pdf)
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.2: Increase Habitat Protected or Restored in Estuaries of National Significance
Increase Habitat Protected or Restored in Estuaries of National Significance

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, working with partners, protect or restore an additional (i.e., measuring from 2009 forward) 500,000 acres of habitat within
the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the NEP.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(202) Acres protected or restored
in NEP study areas
FY 2007
Target
50,000
Actual
102,463
FY 2008
Target
50,000
Actual
83,490
FY 2009
Target
100,000
Actual
125,437
FY2010
Target
100,000
Actual
89,985

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2002, 0 (zero) acres were protected or restored in NEP study areas.
Explanation - This is an impressive accomplishment since several NEPs and their partners were impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill which resulted in their attention, and those of their implementation partners, being taken away from projects in order to respond to
the oil spill. As such, some Gulf NEPs were not able to report at all, or had to significantly scale back the habitat protection and
restoration efforts they did report for this year.
                                                           1284

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.3: Improve the Health of the Great Lakes
Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is at least 23.5
points on a 40-point scale.

Strategic Target (2)
Through 2014, maintain or improve an average annual 5 percent decline for the short-term trend (year 2000 and on) in  average
concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(620) Cumulative percentage
decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in whole
lake trout and walleye samples
FY 2007
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2008
Target
5
Actual
6
FY 2009
Target
5
Actual
6
FY2010
Target
10
Actual
43

Unit
Percent
Decline
Baseline - 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)
Explanation - The methodology for this measure changed in FY 2010 to be consistent with the Great Lakes Action Plan. Historical trend
data shows the annual results; starting in FY 2010, results are reported cumulatively.
Strategic Target (3)
Through 2014, maintain or improve an average 7 percent annual decline for the long-term trend in average concentrations of PCBs in
the air in the Great Lakes basin.
                                                         1285

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(621) Average annual percentage
decline for the long-term trend in
concentrations of PCBs in the air
in the Great Lakes Basin
FY 2007
Target
7
Actual
7.5
FY 2008
Target
7
Actual
7
FY 2009
Target
7
Actual
7
FY2010
Target
7
Actual
7

Unit
Percent
Decline
Baseline - Average concentrations of PCBs in the air 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.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, restore and delist a cumulative total of at least seven areas of concern within the Great Lakes basin.

Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, remediate a cumulative total of 8 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment in the Great Lakes.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(606) Cubic yards of contaminated
sediment remediated (cumulative
from 1997) in the Great Lakes
FY 2007
Target
4.5
Actual
4.5
FY 2008
Target
5.0
Actual
5.5
FY 2009
Target
5.9
Actual
6.0
FY2010
Target
6.3
Actual
7.3

Unit
Cubic Yards
(million)
Baseline - 2.1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring
remediation.
Strategic Target (6)
By 2014, remove 46 beneficial use impairments (BUIs) within areas of concern within the Great Lakes.
                                                           1286

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(625) Number of BUIs removed
within Areas of Concern
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
16
Actual
11
FY 2009
Target
21
Actual
12
FY2010
Target
20
Baseline - In 2006, six BUIs were removed within Areas of Concern.
Actual
12

Unit
BUIs
Removed

Explanation - Delayed because of funding delays, and the lag time between cleanup (such as Legacy Act sediment remediation) and
monitored environmental response; however, missing this target will not adversely impact the long term goal of delisting BUIs. Three BUI
delistings are expected by the end of CY 2010. To accelerate progress in removing BUIs, EPA is making increased FY 2010 and FY 201 1
GLRI funding available to state agencies and local AOCs, specifically targeting certain AOCs for delisting, and systematically identifying
the specific projects necessary for delistings. Through these actions, Great Lakes National Program Office expects that by the end of FY
201 1, the target for removing a cumulative total of 20 BUIs will have been met.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.4: Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Improve the Health of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, achieve 45 percent (83,250 acres) of the 185,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation necessary to achieve Chesapeake
Bay water quality standards.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(232) Percent of forest buffer
planting goal of 10,000 miles
achieved
FY 2007
Target
53


Actual
53


FY 2008
Target
60


Actual
57


FY 2009
Target
62


Actual
62


FY2010
Target
65


Actual
69



Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 38 percent of goal achieved in 2005.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, achieve 40 percent (29.92 cubic km) of the long-term restoration goal of 100 percent attainment of the dissolved oxygen
water quality standards in all tidal waters of the Bay.
                                                         1287

-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, achieve  60 percent (97.43 million Ib) of the implementation goal for nitrogen reduction practices necessary to achieve
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, expressed as nitrogen reduction in relation to achieving a 162.5 million Ib reduction from
1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(230) Percent of point source
nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9
million Ib achieved
FY 2007
Target
70
Actual
69
FY 2008
Target
74
Actual
69
FY 2009
Target
74
Actual
70
FY2010
Target
74
Actual
78

Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 61 percent of point source nitrogen goal achieved in 2005.
(cb3) Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of nitrogen
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the nitrogen
reduction goal of 162.5 million Ib)
47

50
47
50
49
52
51
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - The 2002 baseline is 33 percent goal achievement (52.82 million Ib reduced since 1985); the 2007 baseline is 46 percent goal
achievement (74.63 million Ib reduced since 1986).
Explanation - EPA expects enhanced implementation of nitrogen reduction practices as a result of the TMDL to be established December
3 1, 2010. This is the last year results can be reported for this measure as it was established using an obsolete model.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, achieve 74 percent (10.62 million Ib) of the implementation goal for phosphorus reduction practices necessary to achieve
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, expressed as phosphorus reduction in relation to achieving a 14.36 million Ib reduction from
1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations).
                                                            1288

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(23 1) Percent of point source
phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16
million Ib achieved
FY 2007
Target
84


Actual
0


FY 2008
Target
85


Actual
87


FY 2009
Target
87


Actual
96


FY2010
Target
89


Actual
99



Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 80 percent of point source phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
(cb4) Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of phosphorus
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the phosphorus
reduction goal of 14.36 million Ib)
64




62




66




62




64




65




66




67




Percent
Goal
Achieved


Baseline - 58 percent of phosphorus goal achieved in 2005.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, achieve 83  percent (1.4 million tons)  of the implementation goal for sediment reduction practices necessary to achieve
Chesapeake Bay water quality standards, expressed as sediment reduction in relation to achieving a 1.69 million ton reduction from
1985 levels (based on long-term average hydrology simulations).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(cb5) Percent of goal achieved for
implementation of sediment
reduction practices (expressed as
progress meeting the sediment
reduction goal of 1.69 million Ib)
FY 2007
Target
61
Actual
65
FY 2008
Target
64
Actual
64
FY 2009
Target
67
Actual
64
FY2010
Target
71
Actual
69

Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved
Baseline - 54 percent of sediment goal achieved in 2005.
Explanation - EPA expects enhanced implementation of sediment reduction practices as a result of the TMDL to be established December
31,2010.
                                                           1289

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.5: Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
Improve the Health of the Gulf of Mexico
Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be improved from 2.4 to 2.6 on the "good/fair/poor" scale of
the National Coastal Condition Report.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(22b) 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
Target
2.4
Actual
2.4
FY 2008
Target
2.5
Actual
2.2
FY 2009
Target
2.5
Actual
2.2
FY2010
Target
2.5
Actual
Data
Avail
12/2011

Unit
Scale
Baseline - In 2004, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2.4 where the rating is based on a five-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.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 160 impaired segments (cumulative) in 13 priority
coastal areas.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(xgl) Restore water and habitat
quality to meet water quality
standards in impaired segments in
13 priority coastal areas
(cumulative starting in FY 2007)
FY 2007
Target





Actual





FY 2008
Target
64




Actual
131




FY 2009
Target
96




Actual
131




FY2010
Target
96




Actual
170





Unit
Impaired
Segments



Baseline - In 2005, 28 segments restored
                                                         1290

-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative 32,600 acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(xg2) Restore, enhance, or protect
a cumulative number of acres of
important coastal and marine
habitats
FY 2007
Target


Actual


FY 2008
Target
18,200

Actual
25,215

FY 2009
Target
26,000

Actual
29,344

FY2010
Target
27,500

Actual
29,552


Unit
Acres

Baseline - In 2005, 16,000 acres restored, enhanced, or protected; Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland habitats include 3,769,370 acres.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2015, reduce releases of nutrients throughout the Mississippi River Basin to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of
Mexico to less than 5,000 km , as measured by the five-year running average of the size of the zone.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.6: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound
Restore and Protect Long Island Sound

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound by 54.5 percent from the baseline to 26,854 trade equalized
(TE) Ib/day.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H5) Percent of goal achieved in
reducing TE point source nitrogen
discharges to Long Island Sound
from the 1999 baseline of 59,146
TE Ib/day
FY 2007
Target





Actual





FY 2008
Target





Actual





FY 2009
Target





Actual





FY2010
Target
52




Actual
Data
Avail
3/2011



Unit
Percent
Goal
Achieved


Baseline - In 2000, 59,146 TE Ib/day achieved.
                                                          1291

-------
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, reduce in maximum area and duration of hypoxia in Long Island Sound (i.e., defined as the area in which the maximum July
through September dissolved oxygen level is <3mg/l in bottom waters 
-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.7: Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem
Restore and Protect the South Florida Ecosystem

Strategic Target (1)
Through 2014, maintain "no net loss" of stony coral cover (mean percent stony coral cover) in the FNKMS and in the coastal waters
of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida, working with all stakeholders (federal, state, and local).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(sfl) Achieve "no net loss" of
stony coral cover in FKNMS and
in the coastal waters of Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach
Counties, Florida working with all
stakeholders
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Small
Loss
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
Loss
FY2010
Target
No Net
Loss
Actual
No Net
Loss

Unit
Mean
Percent Area
Baseline - 6.8 percent in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) Strategic Plan baseline of 6.7 percent was revised to 6.8
percent. The Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project for the FKNMS was modified in 2006 by dropping one hard bottom
monitoring site because of the very small percentage of stony coral cover present (less than 0.2 percent) resulting in an increase of 0.1
percent in the mean percent stony coral cover for the entire sanctuary. Statistical analyses of the Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring
Project indicated that sampling a reduced number of stations at sites with low stony coral cover would still produce statistically valid
results; 5.9 percent in southeast Florida in 2005.
Strategic Target (2)
Through 2014, annually maintain the overall health and functionality of sea grass beds in the FKNMS as measured by the long-term
sea grass monitoring project that addresses composition and abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability.
                                                           1293

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(sf2) Annually maintain the
overall health and functionality of
sea grass beds in the FKNMS as
measured by the long-term sea
grass monitoring project
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY2010
Target
Maintain
Actual
Maintained

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2005, Florida Keys sea grasses elemental indicator (El) is 8.28 for Nitrogen; Phosphorus of Thalassia and a Species
Composition Index (SCI) of 0.48 for relative abundance of Thalassia.
Strategic Target (3)
Through 2014, annually maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters for the FKNMS.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(sfO) Annually maintain the
overall water quality of the near
shore and coastal waters of the
FKNMS
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
Maintain
Actual
Maintained

Unit
Parts per
billion
Baseline - In 2005: chlorophyll = 0.2 micrograms per liter (ug/L) = 43 sites; light attenuation = 0.13/meter (m) = 23 sites; dissolved
inorganic nitrogen = 0.75 micrometers (uM) = 251 sites; and TP = 0.2 uM = 296 sites.
Strategic Target (4)
Through 2014, improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total phosphorus (TP), including meeting the
10 ppb TP criterion throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the effluent limits in permits or discharges from storm water
treatment areas.
                                                           1294

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(sf5) Improve the water quality of
the Everglades ecosystem as
measured by TP, including
meeting the 10 ppb TP criterion
throughout the Everglades
Protection Area marsh
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained
FY2010
Target
Maintain
Actual
Not
Maintained

Unit
Parts/Billion
Baseline - The average annual geometric mean phosphorus concentrations were 5 ppb in Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water
Conservation Area 3 A, 13 ppb in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and 18 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average
flow weighted TP discharges from Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) ranged from 13 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W in 2005.
Explanation - Source controls and STA s (treatment wetlands) are not adequate for treating all water to the discharge limits. Inflow
phosphorus concentrations to the Everglades continue to exceed the 10 ppb criterion, in spite of significant progress.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.8: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin
Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in 2,300 acres of shellfish bed growing areas impacted by
degraded or declining water quality in the Puget Sound.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(psl) Improve water quality and
enable the lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of shellfish
bed growing areas impacted by
degrading or declining water
quality
FY 2007
Target


Actual


FY 2008
Target
450

Actual
1,566

FY 2009
Target
600

Actual
1,730

FY2010
Target
1,800

Actual
4,453


Unit
Acres

Baseline - In 2008, 1,566 acres (cumulative) of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions.
                                                         1295

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
  Explanation - There was only one downgrade during that period (only 33 acres). Due to El Nino conditions, which resulted in lower
  precipitation and fewer storm events, the ability to adversely affect water quality and shellfish growing bed status was affected. Also, there
  were many significant upgrades, including 1,600 acres in one area alone after 25 years at a lower classification status.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, remediate 325 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments in the Puget Sound.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ps2) Remediate acres of
prioritized contaminated sediments
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
123
FY 2009
Target
125
Actual
123.1
FY2010
Target
123
Actual
123.1

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 123 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments were remediated.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, protect and restore 9,500 acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands in the Puget Sound.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(ps3) Restore the acres of tidally
and seasonally influenced
estuarine wetlands
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
2,310
Actual
4,413
FY 2009
Target
3,000
Actual
5,751
FY2010
Target
6,500
Actual
10,062

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2008, 4,413 acres (cumulative) of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands were restored.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, reduce total diesel  emissions in the Puget Sound air shed by 12 percent through  coordinated diesel emission mitigation
efforts.
                                                            1296

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.3.9: Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin
Restore and Protect the Columbia River Basin

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, protect, enhance, or restore 19,000 acres of wetland and upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River watershed.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(crl) Protect, enhance, or restore
acres of wetland habitat and acres
of upland habitat in the Lower
Columbia River watershed
(cumulative starting FY 2006)
FY 2007
Target



Actual



FY 2008
Target
8,000


Actual
12,986


FY 2009
Target
10,000


Actual
15,700


FY2010
Target
16,000


Actual
16,000



Unit
Acres


Baseline - In 2005, 96,770 acres of wetland and upland habitat available for protection, enhancement, or restoration.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, clean up 85 acres of known highly contaminated sediments in the Columbia River basin.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(cr2) Clean up acres of known
contaminated sediments
(cumulative starting FY 2006)
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target
5
Actual
10
FY2010
Target
20
Actual
20

Unit
Acres
Baseline - In 2006, 400 acres of known highly contaminated sediments were found in the main-stem of the Lower Columbia and Lower
Willamette Rivers.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, demonstrate a 10 percent reduction in mean concentration of certain contaminants of concern found in water and fish tissue
in the Columbia River basin.
                                                         1297

-------
OBJECTIVE: 4.4: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
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.
PMs Met
12
PMs Not Met
3
Data Available After February 7,
2011
O
Total PMs
18
 This total includes two performance measures for which the Agency did not collect data.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.1: Human Health Research
Human Health Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
assessing human health risk and protecting human health.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H07) Percentage of human health
program publications rated as
highly cited papers
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY 2008
Target
25.5
Actual
25.60
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Established
Actual
Biennial
FY2010
Target
26.5
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011

Unit
Percent
Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an
article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in
the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI." Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period,
and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on
the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an
instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
                                                         1298

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H29) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
public health outcomes long-term
goal
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100
FY2010
Target
100
Actual


Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2002, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its public health outcomes long-term goal and
completed 100 percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and
policy decisions related to human health.
(H30) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
mechanistic data long-term goal
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Percent
Baseline - In FY 2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its susceptible subpopulations long term goal and
completed 100 percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and
policy decisions related to human health.
(H31) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
aggregate and cumulative risk
long-term goal
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Percent
Baseline - In FY 2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its aggregate and cumulative risk long term goal and
completed 80 percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy
decisions related to human health.
(H32) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
susceptible subpopulations long-
term goal
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
64
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2000, the program began tracking its planned outputs supporting its mechanistic data long term goal and completed 100
percent of its outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions
related to human health.
1299

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
  Explanation - 64 percent of the program's planned outputs for FY 2010 were achieved. Several outputs were not met in FY 2010 due to
  two-year, no-cost extensions that were granted under EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) extramural research program. Grants are
  awarded with a 3-5 year time period for completing research. Grantees are allowed a no-cost extension of one year, if requested in writing,
  beyond the original project period to complete proposed research. No-cost extensions are granted for academically based scientific
  research grants that pursue specific avenues of research. Regular progress reports for these outputs not met in FY 2010 have been
  delivered and final reports are expected to be complete by March 2011.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.2: Ecosystem Research
Ecosystem Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
protecting and restoring ecosystems.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(118) Number of 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
FY 2007
Target
30
Actual
30
FY 2008
Target
35
Actual
35
FY 2009
Target
40
Actual
50
FY2010
Target
45
Actual
50

Unit
States
Baseline - Data reflect the number of states with which the program has worked collaboratively to assist in using a common monitoring
design and developing appropriate indicators.
Explanation - This measure is complete and should not longer be reported, since all 50 states are using the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) tool.
(119) Percentage of ecological
research publications rated as
highly-cited publications
20.4
21.10
No Target
Established
Biennial
21.4
Data
Avail
11/2011
No Target
Established
Biennial
Percent
                                                          1300

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - In FY 2007, 21.1 percent of Ecological Research publications were rated as highly-cited publications.
(120) Percentage of ecological
research publications in "high-
impact" journals
20.3
20.80
No Target
Established
Biennial
21.3
Data
Avail
11/2012
No Target
Established
Biennial
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, 20.8 percent of Ecological research publications were in "high-impact" journals.
(121) 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
100
67
100
100
100
100
100
88
Percent
Baseline - In 2007, 100 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of state, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for causal
diagnosis tools and methods to determine causes of ecological degradation.
Explanation - 88 percent of the program's planned outputs were completed in FY 2010. Due to unanticipated staffing changes, the report
was not completed.
(122) 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
100
100
100
83
100
93
100

Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007, 100 percentage of planned outputs were 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.
1301

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(123) 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
Target
100


Actual
100


FY 2008
Target
100


Actual
100


FY 2009
Target
100


Actual
93


FY2010
Target
100


Actual




Unit
Percent


Baseline - In 2007, 100 percent of planned outputs were 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.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.3: HHRA Research
HHRA Research
Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA health
hazard information.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H83) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
HHRA Technical Support
documents
FY 2007
Target
90
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
90
Actual
89
FY 2009
Target
90
Actual
100
FY2010
Target
90
Actual


Unit
Percent
Baseline - In 2004, the program began work on delivering outputs in support of HHRA Technical Support Documents and delivered 83
percent of outputs on time. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related
to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
                                                         1302

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.4: Global Climate Change Research
Global Climate Change Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2013, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
assessing the consequences of global change on air quality, water quality, ecosystems, and human health.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H76) Percentage of global
publications rated as highly cited
publications
FY 2007
Target
22


Actual
25.0


FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established

Actual
25


FY 2009
Target
23


Actual
Data Not
Collected

FY2010
Target
No Target
Established

Actual
Biennial



Unit
Percent


  Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an
  article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in
  the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI." Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period,
  and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on
  the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an
  instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
(H77) Percentage of global
publications in high impact
journals
23.6


24.1


No Target
Established

24.1


24.6


Data Not
Collected

No Target
Established

Biennial


Percent


  Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published
  in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious
  journals, as determined by "Thomson's JCR." Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match
  the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC.
(H79) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered
Baseline
100
100
100
100
100
100
1 00
Percent
  Baseline - In FY 2007, the Global Change research program began measuring the percentage of outputs delivered. This measure will
  contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and
  ecosystems, with regard to global change.
                                                           1303

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.5: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
decision-making related to effects, exposure, assessment, and management of endocrine disrupters.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.6: Safe Pesticides and Products Research
Safe Pesticides and Products Research

Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
decision-making related to pesticides and toxics.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(106) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
Safe Pesticides/Safe Products
(SP2) program's long-term goal
one
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
86
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100
FY2010
Target
100
Actual
88

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007 86 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal one.
Explanation - 88 percent of this long-term goal's planned outputs were completed in FY 2010. Loss of staff in addition to equipment
issues earlier this year and higher priority work on PCB and caulk protocol pushed this work past due. It will likely be completed by the
end of January.
(108) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
SP2 program's long-term goal two
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2007 100 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal two.
                                                         1304

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
J-»U.k3\^llll\^k3
(110) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of the
SP2 program's long-term goal
three
    FY 2007
Target
Actual
               FY 2008
Target
Actual
                          FY 2009
Target
Actual
                                    FY2010
Target
Actual
Unit
 100
  80
 100
  100
 100
  100
 100
         Percent
       Baseline - In FY 2007 80 percent of planned outputs were delivered in support of the SP2 program's long-term goal three
(11 1) Percentage of SP2
publications rated as highly cited
publications
No Target
Established

Biannual


23.2


Data Not
Collected

No Target
Established

Biennial


24.2


Data Not
Collected

Percent


       Baseline - This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by counting the number of times an
       article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in
       the top 10 percent of their field, as determined by "Thomson's ESI." Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten-year period,
       and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC. This "highly cited" metric provides information on
       the quality of the program's research, as well as the degree to which that research is impacting the science community. As such, it is an
       instructive tool both for the program and for independent panels such as the BOSC in their program reviews.
       Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally
       compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
(112) Percent of SP2 publications
in "high impact" journals
No Target
Established
Biennial
36.2
Data Not
Collected
No Target
Established
Biennial
37.2
Data Not
Collected
Percent
       Baseline - This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting those articles that are published
       in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious
       journals, as determined by "Thomson's JCR." Each analysis evaluates the publications from the last ten-year period, and is timed to match
       the cycle for independent expert program reviews by the BOSC.
       Explanation: The bibliometric measure was not calculated in 2010 because the BOSC review was postponed. The data is generally
       compiled for BOSC reviews but recent program revisions have altered the BOSC schedule.
                                                                1305

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 4.4.7: Homeland Security Research
Homeland Security Research
Strategic Target (1)
By 2012, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
protecting the public and the environment from terrorist threats and attacks.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(H72) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
efficient and effective clean-ups
and safe disposal of contamination
wastes
FY 2007
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
92
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
85
FY2010
Target
100
Actual


Unit
Percent
Baseline - EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to help
decision-makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical and/or
biological attacks have been directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as well as its response
capabilities, by assembling and evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response approaches can be identified,
promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders, decision-makers, and the public. This annual performance goal will provide
guidance documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems and the establishment of remediation goals. These products will
enable first responders to better deal with threats to the public and the environment posed by the intentional release of toxic or infectious
materials.
(H73) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
water security initiatives
100
100
100
83
100
100
100

Percent
                                                         1306

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to help
decision-makers prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical and/or
biological attacks have been directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as well as its response
capabilities, by assembling and evaluating private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response approaches can be identified,
promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders, decision-makers,  and the public. This annual performance goal will provide
guidance documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems and the establishment of remediation goals. These products will
enable first responders to better deal with threats to the public and the environment posed by the intentional release of toxic or infectious
materials.
                                                          1307

-------
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
                     1308

-------
    GOAL  5 AT A GLANCE:  COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
                                   FY 2010 Performance Measures

                Met = 14 Not Met = 2 Data Available After 2/7/11 = 5 (Total Measures = 21)
     How Funds Were Used: Net Program Costs
                (Dollars in Thousands)
                                        Goal 5 Performance Measures
          Healthy
        Communities
      and Ecosystems
        $1.952.626.3
Compliance and
 Environmental
  Stewardship
  $814.298.8
     6.9%

         $3,6I!
                        Safe Water

                       $4,303.455.8
                          36.2%
       Source: FY 2010 Statement of Net Cost by Goal
                                                           Objective I
                                                                      Objective 2
                                Goal 5 FY 2010 Performance and Resources
                               Strategic Objective
                                                                                  Objective 3
                                                      FY 2010
                                                     Obligations
                                                   (in thousands)
                                                                                              Objective 4
 %0f
Goal 5
Funds
  Objective 1—Improve Compliance: By 2011, maximize compliance to protect human
  health and the environment through enforcement and other compliance assurance
  activities by achieving a 5% increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or
  eliminated by regulated entities, including those in Indian country.
                                                   $552,492.4
 68%
  Objective 2—Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and
  Innovation: Improve environmental protection and enhance natural resource conser-
  vation on the part of government, business, and the public through the adoption of
  pollution prevention and sustainable practices that include the design of products and
  manufacturing processes that generate less pollution, the reduction of regulatory barri-
  ers, and the adoption of results-based, innovative, and multimedia approaches.
                                                   $112,087.6
 15%
  Objective 3—Build Tribal Capacity: Assist all federally recognized tribes in assessing
  the condition of their environment, help in building their capacity to implement environ-
  mental programs where needed to improve tribal health and environments, and imple-
  ment programs in Indian country where needed to address environmental issues.
                                                   $112,087.6
 10%
  Objective 4—Enhance Science and Research: Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific
  research on pollution prevention, new technology development, socioeconomic sustain-
  able 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
  policies and decisions and solving problems for the Agency and  its partners and stake-
  holders.
                                                     $64,015.2
 7%
  Goal 5 Total
                                                    $814,298.8
100%
Due to rounding, some numbers might add up to slightly less or more than 100%.
                                                     1309

-------
Goal Purpose

EPA ensures that government, business, and the public comply with federal laws and regulations
by monitoring compliance and taking enforcement actions that result in reduced pollution and
improved environmental conditions. To accelerate the nation's environmental protection efforts,
EPA works to prevent pollution at the source, encourage other forms of environmental
stewardship, and promote innovation and collaboration.

Effective compliance assistance and strong, consistent enforcement are critical to achieving the
human health and environmental benefits expected from environmental laws. EPA monitors
compliance patterns and trends and focuses on priority problem areas identified in consultation
with states, tribes, and other partners. The Agency supports the regulated community by assisting
regulated entities in understanding environmental requirements, helping them identify cost-
effective compliance options and strategies, and providing incentives for compliance.
EPA promotes the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, sustainability, and
accountability to achieve its strategic goals. Collaborating closely with other federal agencies,
states, and tribes, the Agency identifies and promotes innovations that assist businesses and
communities in improving their environmental performance.

EPA works to encourage pollution prevention as the first choice for environmental protection,
promoting sustainable practices and helping businesses and communities move beyond
compliance and become partners in protecting natural resources, managing materials more
efficiently, reducing systemic environmental impacts and GHG emissions, and improving the
environment and public health. EPA promotes sustainable materials management while working
with businesses to increase energy efficiency, find environmentally preferable substitutes for
hazardous existing chemicals, and change processes to reduce overall environmental impacts.
The Agency also works to improve data sharing and collaboration and  conducts research on
pollution prevention, new and developing technologies, social and economic issues, and
decision-making to help promote environmental stewardship. EPA also works with other nations
as they develop their own environmental protection programs, leading to lower levels of
pollution in the United States and worldwide. In conducting this work,  the Agency takes into
consideration the priorities  of its media programs in determining the chemicals, processes,
technologies and practices on which to  focus the attention of its pollution prevention and other
environmental stewardship efforts.

Ensuring compliance and promoting environmental stewardship are important components of the
Agency's efforts to protect human health  and the environment in Indian Country. EPA continues
to provide resources to support federally-recognized tribes and inter-tribal consortia in assessing
environmental conditions on their lands and building environmental programs tailored to their
needs. Tribes, the  first stewards of America's environment, provide an  invaluable perspective on
environmental protection that benefits and strengthens the Agency's stewardship programs.

Contributing Programs

Compliance Assistance Program, Compliance Incentives Program, ETV Program, Monitoring
and Enforcement Program, National Center for Environmental Innovation ,National Partnership
                                          1310

-------
for Environmental Priorities, Economic Decision Sciences Research, Pesticide Enforcement
Grant Program, Pollution Prevention Program, Sector Grant Program, State and Tribal Pollution
Prevention Grants, Sustainable Materials Management, Toxic Substances Compliance Grant
Program, Sustainability Research, Tribal Capacity-Building, and Tribal General Assistance
Program (GAP).

EPA uses program evaluations to help determine whether programs are meeting intended
outcomes and, if not, to identify needed improvements. For program evaluations related to Goal
5, please see the table at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/fmancialperformancereports.htmwhich
summarizes the results of evaluations completed during FY 2010.
                                          1311

-------
Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 5.1
                       (in thousands)
                       Objective 4
             Objective 3
                                 Objective 1
                                 $552,492.40
                                    68%
                   Goal 5 Total Obligations = $814,298.8
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 5.1
       Met =7
     Not Met = 2
  Data Available After
  February?, 2011 = 0
      (Total = 9)
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) supports EPA's goal of
protecting human health and the environment by aggressively targeting the most serious water,
air and chemical pollution problems. The program works to ensure that communities have clean
air, clean water, and are free from chemical contamination by promoting compliance with our
nation's environmental laws. The program also coordinates and collaborates with its federal
partners, and with state, local, and tribal governments to ensure consistent enforcement of all
environmental laws and regulations. By addressing noncompliance swiftly and effectively,
EPA's civil and criminal enforcement efforts directly reduce pollution and risk, and deter others
from violating the law.

Enforcement Goals

In FY 2010, EPA developed three enforcement goals that frame the compliance and enforcement
program.

Goal One: Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities by
using vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air, and
chemical hazards and advances environmental justice by protecting vulnerable communities.

Work under this goal includes issuing the CWA Action Plan; cleaning up great waters,  such as
the Chesapeake Bay; cutting toxic air pollution in communities; assuring compliance with the
GHG reporting rule; and protecting people from exposure to hazardous chemicals by preventing
releases that threaten public health or the environment. EPA developed the following six
National Enforcement Initiatives to address some of the more complex pollution problems:
       •  Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater runoff out of waters.
       •  Cutting animal waste to protect surface and ground waters.
                                          1312

-------
       •  Reducing widespread air pollution from the largest sources, especially the coal-fired
          utility, cement, glass, and acid sectors.
       •  Cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities' health.
       •  Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws.
       •  Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations.

CWA Action Plan

There is widespread consensus that despite significant progress reducing water pollution from
the largest sources, the country faces serious regulatory and compliance challenges in attaining
the water quality goals of the CWA. These challenges include pollution caused by numerous,
dispersed sources, such as concentrated animal feeding operations; sewer overflows;
contaminated water that flows from industrial facilities and construction sites; and runoff from
urban streets. Released in October 2009, the CWA Action
Plan(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html) addresses these challenges
through recommendations to 1)  focus the water enforcement program on pollution sources that
present the greatest threat to water quality;  2) strengthen oversight of state permitting and
enforcement programs to improve results and provide greater consistency; and 3) improve
                       st
transparency by using 21   century technology tools to provide more accurate and useful
information to the public and increase pressure for better compliance performance.

Protecting the Chesapeake Bay

EPA developed a Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy to target sources of
pollution impairing the Bay, starting in FY 2010. The multiyear, multi-state, multimedia strategy
addresses violations of federal environmental laws that result in nutrient and sediment pollution.
The strategy identifies industrial, municipal, and agricultural sources releasing significant
amounts of nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants in excess of the amounts allowed by the
CWA, the CAA, and other applicable environmental  laws.

Oil Spill Response/Protecting the Nation's Waters

The explosions and fires aboard the Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf
of Mexico, resulted in 11 deaths, millions of gallons of spilled oil, and still-unknown
environmental damage. Millions of gallons of oily waste and thousands of tons of oil-
contaminated materials and solid wastes have been recovered and disposed of in disposal
facilities in Gulf-area states. As  part of the government's response, EPA, working with the U.S.
USCG, drafted the enforceable directives issued to BP regarding the limited and appropriate use
of oil dispersants and proper management of oil and contaminated wastes. In addition, EPA
worked with DOJ on the investigation into the cause  of the disaster and enforcement follow-up
to hold accountable those responsible for the spill under the terms of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 and the CWA.

-------
Addressing Air Toxics

EPA stepped up enforcement activities to control air toxics that pose significant risks to
communities located near large sources of toxic air emissions and announced new efforts to
combat emissions from flares at those facilities. The Agency increased use of state-of-the-
science remote monitoring tools to evaluate previously unmeasured toxic emissions from
refineries and coal coke ovens that threaten nearby communities. EPA deployed new forward
looking infrared cameras to protect communities from uncontrolled emissions posed by the
burgeoning oil and gas development across the nation. Finally, EPA continued new source
review initiatives in the coal-fired power plant, cement kiln, glass and acid manufacturing
sectors, securing major reductions in emissions that  adversely affect community health.

Addressing Hazardous Waste, Pesticides, and Toxic Materials

EPA continued to address environmental risks posed by mineral processing facilities to ensure
that hazardous waste is managed properly and does  not contaminate drinking water or damage
wildlife.  The Agency continued to focus  on waste managed in surface impoundments, which
often threaten drinking water and contribute to poor air quality in surrounding communities. To
help prevent exposure to toxic chemicals and pesticides, EPA coordinated with U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to prevent imports of non-compliant pesticides;  increased its focus on
nanoscale chemicals to ensure that Agency has the opportunity to review the risks posed before
these chemicals are  manufactured and used; continued to enforce existing  and new requirements
for lead-based paint, including ensuring that lead-safe practices are used; and increased use of
real-time U.S.  Customs data to identify companies which are not complying with TSCA
certification requirements.

Reducing, Treating, and Eliminating Pollutants

As part of FY 2010  enforcement actions, EPA secured commitments for pollution controls which
will reduce, treat,  or eliminate illegal release of pollutants in the first year  after pollution controls
are installed. During FY 2010, the Agency reduced,  treated, or eliminated  an estimated:

    •   410 million pounds of air pollutants. This includes 390 million pounds of SC>2, NOx, and
       PM, and 3.9 million pounds of hazardous air pollutants. The reductions from the largest
       stationary  source air enforcement cases result in estimated health benefits of over $6.2 to
       $15billion, including:
          o   Reducing approximately 680 to 1,700 premature deaths in people with heart or
              lung  disease.
          o   87,000fewer days of missed work or  school.
          o   650 fewer emergency room visits due to respiratory illnesses, such as asthma.

    •   1,000 million pounds of water pollutants. The top categories of pollutants reduced,
       treated, or eliminated from illegal discharges that affect water quality are suspended
       solids,  oil, dissolved solids, oxygen demanding pollutants, and  nutrients. Of the facilities
       where enforcement actions require reductions or eliminations of illegal discharges, 49
       percent discharged into waters that do not achieve water quality standards.
                                           1314

-------
   •   8.3 million pounds of toxic pollutants and pesticides. The top categories of pollutants
       reduced, treated, or eliminated are PCBs, pesticides, and metals.

   •   11,800 million pounds of hazardous waste.

As in years past, most of the pollutant reductions result from a few cases. When fully
implemented, the  10 most significant FY 2010 enforcement settlements will cumulatively reduce
an estimated 1.2 billion pounds of pollutants over one year. Pollution reduction totals normally
show large variations from year to year, because reductions tend to be driven by the results from
a few very large cases. For additional information, see:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.

EPA's enforcement and compliance program identifies and focuses on priority environmental
risks and noncompliance problems through the National Enforcement  Initiatives. For example,
one enforcement case under the mineral processing enforcement initiative will achieve an
estimated 9.9 billion pound pollutant reduction of hazardous waste in the first year after the
facility returns to compliance.

Goal Two: Reset our relationship with states to make sure we are delivering on our joint
commitment to a clean and healthy environment

EPA issued interim guidance on short-term actions to strengthen state performance and
oversight. The Agency also began to integrate regional and state permitting and enforcement in
annual planning and to integrate permitting and enforcement review results to ensure that
resources are  used strategically to address program performance issues in states. Integration of
EPA and state enforcement was also incorporated into the Agency's Performance Partnership
Agreements/Performance Partnership Grants guidance. As an example of this integration, EPA
reviewed state administrative penalty authorities for water permits.

Goal Three: Improve transparency

EPA's work in this area is designed to make meaningful facility compliance information
available and  accessible using 21st century technologies. This will hold the government
accountable through public information on state and federal performance.

EPA has improved public access to compliance and enforcement program results by  using global
positioning system (GPS) mapping and other computer-based programs. EPA's Enforcement &
Compliance History Online (ECHO) Internet site now includes a mapping tool which allows the
public  to view the locations of facilities that were the subject of enforcement actions. Searches
on specific facilities allow the user to find historical information about specific enforcement
actions, such  as violations and monetary penalties. In addition, viewers can find out which
facilities are located near water bodies listed as "impaired" because they do not meet federal
water quality  standards. EPA has also provided on its website an interactive map
(http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/) showing state comparative performance data for CWA
minor facilities, detailed information on the current state of clean water compliance and
                                          1315

-------
enforcement in each state, and the latest clean water enforcement performance reports for each
state.

Enhancing Criminal Enforcement

EPA's criminal enforcement program is focusing its resources on the most pressing
environmental crimes by investigating a higher percentage of cases which have the most
significant consequences based upon categories of human health and environmental impacts
(e.g., death, serious injury, human exposure, and remediation), release and discharge
characteristics (e.g., hazardous or toxic pollutants and continuing violations), and subject
characteristics (e.g., national corporation and repeat violator). This strategic  shift in case
selection and investigation will enhance the Agency's deterrent impact and ability to pursue
aggressively pollution problems that matter to communities; increase transparency; and
strengthen EPA's relationships with states, tribes, and law enforcement partnerships. In FY 2010,
the Agency charged the highest number of defendants with  environmental crimes since FY 2005.
The criminal enforcement program also completed its three-year hiring strategy to increase to no
less than 200 the number of special agents assigned to investigating environmental crimes, a
minimum that the Agency will maintain in future years (there were a total of 206 agents as of
September 30, 2010).

Environmental Justice

EPA's environmental justice goals are to protect health in low income and minority communities
that suffer disproportionate environmental impacts from pollution; empower communities to take
action to improve their health and environment; and establish partnerships with local, state, tribal
and federal organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable communities. The Environmental
Justice Program and Office of Children's Health continued their collaboration to develop and
implement a cross-cutting strategy that will use a variety of approaches—including regulation,
enforcement, research, outreach, community-based programs, and partnerships—to protect
children and disproportionately impacted populations from environmental and human health
hazards. Several of the National Enforcement Initiatives address some of the most complex and
widespread problems that communities experience, such as  sewer overflows, animal waste
discharges into waters, and excessive air pollution from large industrial sectors. EPA continued
to fund environmental justice small grants, cooperative agreements to support communities
affected by major environmental disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and
Environmental Justice Showcase Communities projects in all ten of its regions.

Development of Performance Measures

EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program is moving from a tool-based (e.g.,
assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement) to an environmental problem-based (e.g.,
air and water) approach to addressing noncompliance and environmental harms. As part of this
new approach, EPA's enforcement program is developing a suite of measures that expand its
ability to communicate to the public. The  suite of measures addresses:
                                          1316

-------
   •   Enforcement Presence/Level-of-Effort Measures: the extent of the general enforcement
       and compliance assurance presence in communities.
   •   Case-Linked Outcome Indicators: the annual and long-term trends in environmental
       benefits resulting from EPA enforcement actions.
   •   Strategic Enforcement Measures: the results of EPA's focused efforts to address specific,
       high-priority problems that make a difference to communities.

When viewed together, this suite of measures provides a more comprehensive understanding of
the program than has been available previously.

The FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan includes five-year measures for EPA's enforcement
presence and outcome indicators for which EPA will develop annual performance measures for
inclusion in the Annual Plan and Budget.EPA has historically relied on enforcement presence or
level-of-effort measures to illustrate that EPA is actively and consistently performing the
activities necessary to  find polluters, take appropriate action, and monitor defendants'
compliance with settled enforcement cases.EPA also uses case-linked outcome indicators to
communicate the environmental benefits gained from completed enforcement and compliance
activities such as compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement cases. Unlike
level-of-effort results,  which tend to be relatively consistent on a yearly basis, these outcome
measures are dominated by very large enforcement cases and will typically vary widely over
time depending on the pollution problems being addressed.

In FY 2011, EPA will  begin phasing in a new category of measurement-strategic enforcement
measures-designed to  demonstrate progress toward achieving its national enforcement goal of
aggressively going after specific pollution problems  that matter to communities. To launch this
effort, EPA's enforcement program will focus initially on developing measures that demonstrate
progress toward its six national enforcement initiative goals. EPA will develop strategic
measures that chart our progress in addressing these  significant compliance problems,
recognizing that the measures, like the solutions, will vary with the problem. The enforcement
program will make these initial strategic enforcement measures publicly available during FY
2011 and will use the information gained from  the implementation of these measures to guide the
development of future measures.

Explanation of the Missed Measures

EPA prosecuted and successfully settled a number of major enforcement cases in 2010, reducing
air pollution by approximately 410 million Ibs. The target of 480 million Ibs was not ultimately
reached because of several factors. First, as a result of our limited statutory administrative
authorities, EPA must  refer the vast majority of its cases to DOJ for prosecution. EPA currently
has a robust pipeline of, and continues to develop, cases for referral to DOJ. However,  EPA has
only a modest ability to influence the speed at which a case moves through the courts. Although
most cases settle, it is the proximity to trial or resolution of critical issues that often spurs a
settlement. Second, in  FY 2010, the pace of settlements slowed as companies faced greater
challenges in securing financing for expensive  pollution controls due to the state of the economy,
leading to more lengthy negotiations. Finally, in the  air national enforcement initiative  areas,
EPA typically targets the largest facilities first, resulting in larger pounds of pollutants  reduced in
                                          1317

-------
the earlier stages of the initiative, and smaller facilities second, resulting in smaller pounds of
pollution reduced in the later stages of the initiative. The FY 2010 pollution reduction numbers
are still large and important to air quality but in a well targeted program the expectation is
pounds of pollution reduced from targeted facilities should either stay level or decrease in future
years.

The criminal enforcement program measure on the percent of recidivism was missed. Three
cases out of 198 cases exhibited recidivism  for a result of 1.5 percent. That result was rounded
up to 2 percent. This measure will not be continued in FY 2011.

Long-Term Data Trend for Performance Measure:
Estimated Millions of Pounds of Pollution Reduced Through Enforcement Action
                2006
2007
2008*
2009
2010
*2008 results anomalous due to small number of large cases. Normalized level represents
more typical trend.

Background: EPA secures commitments for future pollution controls to reduce, treat, or
eliminate millions of pounds of pollution through enforcement actions. Pollution reduction totals
can vary significantly from year to year because total reductions are driven by the results from a
few very large cases. This measure was originally selected to track performance toward the long-
term goal of the 2003-2008 Strategic Plan because a 5 percent increase in pounds of pollution
reduced, treated, or eliminated by regulated entities was the target of the objective goal. For
additional information, see: www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/index.html.
                                          1318

-------
Trend: The average estimated number of pounds of pollution reduced through enforcement has
been approximately 851 million pounds  for each of the past four years, exceeding target values
for this measure most years. The results for FY 2010 are higher than three of the past four years
and are higher than the average for the past four years. The FY 2010 pollutant reduction levels
are consistent with the long-term trends for this measure. Assessing the trend for this
performance measure requires consideration of the following factors:

   •   Results are driven by a small number of large cases. For example, in FY 2010 the top five
       water cases accounted for approximately 74 percent of the water pollutant reductions and
       the top five air cases accounted for approximately 85 percent of the air pollutant
       reductions.

   •   FY 2008 was an anomaly characterized by a few unprecedented large cases that are not
       expected to be repeated.  The estimated 3,900 million pounds that were reduced in FY
       2008 were driven by one enforcement settlement taken under the CAA and four under the
       CWA.  These five cases accounted for 2,900 million of the 3,900 million pounds.
       Otherwise, the total would have been in the range of what was accomplished in the
       previous four years as well as in FY 2009.As explained in the FY 2009 Performance and
      Accountability Report., the FY 2008 actual value was normalized to account for the
       extraordinary pollutant reductions by just a few cases. Average pollutant reductions from
       similar facilities were  substituted for the results for those five cases.

   •   The FY 2009 result was  lower than expected due to the downturn in the construction
       industry and fewer new source review/prevention of significant deterioration cases
       brought to conclusion by DOJ.

   •   Using the normalized results for FY 2008 and despite the variability in case results, the
       case totals for four of the five years fell within a 15 percent range.

   •   Much of the progress in pollutant reductions is a result of the focus on National
       Enforcement Initiatives.  4Those initiatives are selected for their environmental
       significance and high noncompliance. The FY 2010 priorities include air toxics,
       combined and sanitary sewer overflows, concentrated animal feeding operations,
       financial responsibility, Indian Country, mineral processing, new source
       review/prevention of significant deterioration, and stormwater. While pollutant reduction
       from cases brought under the enforcement initiatives generally leads the progress for this
       measure that is not always the case. For example, air toxics cases tend to produce smaller
       amounts of pollution reduced; however, those pollutants pose significant health and
       environmental risk. That risk was a key factor in air toxics being selected as a national
       enforcement initiative.
63 F Y 2008 pollutant reduction results were normalized to account for abnormally high reductions from a few unprecedented
cases.
64
  http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/data/planning/initiatives/index.html.
                                           1319

-------
   •   As EPA addresses the largest pollutant problems within the National Initiative areas, it is
       likely that the air and water pollutant reduction totals will decrease over time.

   •   New reporting categories for FY 2010 allow the calculation of the pollutant reductions of
       hazardous waste cases in pounds. However, to maintain the long-term trend analysis, the
       values for hazardous waste pollutant reductions have not been added to FY 2010 total
       shown in the table above. The long term trend value for FY 2010 includes air, water,
       toxics, and pesticide case pollutant reductions.

Performance Quality Data: To satisfy GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines,  and
other significant enforcement and compliance policies  on performance measurement, the OECA
instituted a semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information.
Additionally, the Office of Compliance, within OECA, has an established quarterly data review
process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's enforcement and
compliance information.

Most of the essential data on environmental results in the ICIS Federal Enforcement &
Compliance (FE&C) is collected through the Case Conclusion Data Sheet, which the Agency
staff prepares after the conclusion of each civil, judicial and administrative enforcement action.
Pollutants reduced or eliminated reported in Case Conclusion Data Sheets are projected estimates
that will result over a one-year time period 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.
                                          1320

-------
Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Innovation
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 5.2
                       (in thousands)
                      Objective 4
                  Goal 5 Total Obligations = $814,298.8
                                                                  FY 2010 Performance
                                                                 Measures: Objective 5.2
                                                                       Met=l
                                                                      Not Met = 0
                                                                   Data Available After
                                                                   February?, 2011 = 5
                                                                       (Total = 6)
The 1990 Pollution Prevention Act established a national environmental policy of preventing
pollution before it is generated. EPA is enhancing cross-Agency efforts to advance sustainable
practices, safer chemicals and products, cleaner, more environmentally sustainable processes and
practices. The objective of the Pollution Prevention (P2) Program is to promote elimination or
reduction of pollution at the source and the adoption of other stewardship practices by
companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.

Partial results available for FY 2010 are reviewed in detail below. Complete FY 2009
performance results, which became available in FY 2010, document that 605.61 million pounds
of hazardous materials were reduced, 1.618MMTCO2E were conserved, and 4,671.2 billion
gallons of water were conserved, saving a total of $176.53 million.

P2 Program Achievements

The P2 Program achieves results by advancing a variety of proven strategies and making them
available to participants. Strategies include establishing voluntary consensus standards to
identify green products for consumers; providing P2 technical assistance to businesses and other
entities; developing greener and safer chemical  substitutes; developing leaner and greener
technologies and processes; leveraging federal and state purchasing; marketing greener
chemicals and products to consumers (e.g., through labeling); developing/marketing cleaner and
more efficient energy sources; and promoting water conservation. These programs include P2
Technical Assistance, the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP), Green Supplier's
Network, Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, Design for the Environment (DfE), Green
Engineering,  and Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare.
                                           1321

-------
P2 Technical Assistance

The P2 Program provides technical assistance to businesses and other entities through grants
(awarded and managed by EPA's 10 regional offices) to states, tribes, and other
organizations.65According to latest available data in FY 2009, regional pollution prevention
programs awarded 49 state and tribal Assistance Grants and 25 Source Reduction Assistance
Grants, resulting in 23.641  million pounds of hazardous materials reductions, 4077.79 million
gallons of water conserved, 0.43MMTCO2E conservation, and $110.74 million of cost savings.
Through the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2RX), technical assistance and
information is provided directly to businesses and indirectly through a network of state and tribal
technical  assistance providers. 6 These centers also manage a data collection system for states to
enter program results. To account for the contributions made by these centers, they are assigned
10 percent of state results reported through this system that are not attributable to EPA's P2
Grants. FY 2008 and FY 2009 EPA and state P2 results data made final in FY 2010 document
that the P2 Program's technical assistance  efforts reduced 353.841 million pounds of hazardous
materials, 88881.99 million metric tons of CC>2 equivalent,  and 1.964 billion gallons of water
saved, and saved $215.64 billion.

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP)

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing is a federal government-wide program that implements
presidential EOs 13423  and 13514,67which require federal agencies to purchase environmentally
preferable products and services, and assists agencies in meeting the EO requirements. The
program has been active most recently in the electronics sector, partnering with 19 federal
agencies through the Federal  Electronics Challenge (FEC). These agencies have 252 partner
facilities and cover more than 761,000 federal  employees. Finalized in FY 2010, the FY 2009
data for the FEC demonstrate that the federal government reduced 0.34 MMTCC^E reduced 9.99
million pounds of hazardous  materials,  and saved $46.68 million through pollution prevention
actions. 8 The EPP Program also employs the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment
Tool  (EPEAT)69 to identify environmentally preferable electronic products and is working with
the Green Electronics Council to promote the purchase of these products. FY 2010 results show
that the purchase of EPEAT-assessed computer products reduced 310 thousand metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents, reduced 14 million pounds of hazardous materials, and saved $63.3
million.70
65 EPA P2 Grant Program website: www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/ppis.htm
66 EPA P2RX fact sheet: www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppin/factsheet.htm
67 EPP EOs: www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/guidance/executiveorders.htm
68 Results for EPP come from the FEC and EPEAT. 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 (EEBC) to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved
(among other benefits) on an annual basis. Manufacturers of EPEAT registered products provide collective data on annual sales
of EPEAT-registered products to the Green Electronics Council (GEC). The EPP team obtains this data from the GEC, runs these
sales data through the EEBC to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved
(among other benefits) on an annual basis.
69 EPEAT website: www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/products/epeat.htm
70 Results for EPP come from the FEC and EPEAT. 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 EEBC to calculate pounds of
hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis.
Manufacturers of EPEAT registered products provide collective data on annual sales of EPEAT-registered products to the GEC.

                                             1322

-------
In conjunction with EPA's Office of Policy, in FY 2010 the EPP Program also made significant
progress in implementing its strategy for promoting adoption of green building practices71
through development of key voluntary consensus standards, including the U.S. Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Rating System; the National
Association of Home Builders Green Building Standard; the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 189; Green Globes; and National
Science Foundation sustainability standards on carpet, textiles, furniture, wall-coverings, and
other building products. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/epp/.

Green Suppliers Network

The Green  Suppliers Network is collaboration between EPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce,
and industry to help all levels of the manufacturing supply chain achieve environmental and
economic benefits. The Green Suppliers Network leverages the Department of Commerce
manufacturing extension partnership centers and state pollution prevention experts to offer
manufacturers clean production technical assistance to improve their productivity, efficiency,
and environmental performance. In FY 2010,  the Green Suppliers Network completed 46 partner
reviews, with 62 reviews currently in process  and 19 partner leads identified. In 2010 each Green
Suppliers Network review identified potential reductions of 0.44 million pounds of hazardous
materials, 0.216 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and 20.56 million gallons of
water conserved, and $4.31  million saved. A year after these reviews, the manufacturing
extension partnership centers follow up with the facilities, and soon thereafter results information
is captured in the partnership survey. These results will be reported in the FY 2011 APR.

An important element of the Green Supplier Network is Economy, Energy, and Environment
(E3), a coordinated federal and local initiative enabling the industrial sector to adapt and thrive in
a new business era focused on sustainability. E3 is boosting local economies and benefiting
communities by reducing environmental impacts,  reducing overall waste and increasing savings.
Linda Jordan, the CFO of UEMC, was quick to comment that E3 is about much more than just
saving the company money and energy. Jordan stated "the impact reaches far beyond energy,
dollars or the environment. It is about people and community. When tricetylmethyl ammonium
chloride (TMAC) conducted our E3 assessment last year we had 100 people employed on the
floor. We are now up to 200 employees with plans to grow to 240.Every dollar that we don't
have to  spend on wasted energy or materials is one more dollar that we have  available to invest
in our workforce." E3 provides small- and medium-sized manufacturers with lean and clean
manufacturing, energy use, and GHG assessments to maximize energy efficiency of systems;
identify and reduce emissions and hazardous waste; identify and reduce the use of water in
manufacturing processes; identify material substitutes that are not harmful to the environment;
identify opportunities for reducing carbon emissions; promote sustainable manufacturing
practices and growth; and reduce business costs.

EPA is  collaborating with the National Institute of Standards  and Technology's Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program, DOE, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of

The EPP team obtains this data from the GEC, runs these sales data through the EEBC to calculate pounds of
hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis.
71 EPA Green Building Web site: www. epa. gov/greenbuilding

                                           1323

-------
Labor (DOL) to conduct the E3 program. In FY 2010, EPA began to phase out the federal cost
share of the E3 assessments because of increasing understanding of the economic benefits they
provide. The initiative has evolved from pilot projects conducted in FY 2009 and FY 2010 in
Columbus, Ohio, and San Antonio,  Texas, to include additional efforts initiated in FY 2010 in
Alabama,  West Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and  parts of Michigan and  North
Carolina.  Ohio and  Texas have adopted  statewide expansions  of E3 efforts.  For additional
information, see:  http://www.epa.gov/greensuppliers/.

Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program

The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program recognizes innovations in greener
chemical product and process design, development, and implementation.72 In FY 2010, the 15th
year of the program, EPA recognized five winning entries from more than 77 nominations from
businesses and academia in three focus areas: 1) greener synthetic pathways, 2) greener reaction
conditions, and 3) the design of greener chemicals. Since program inception, winning
technologies have been responsible for reducing the use of more than 198 million pounds of
hazardous chemicals, saving 21 billion gallons of water, and eliminating 57 million pounds of
CO2 releases to the air.

Design for the Environment (DfE) Program

EPA's Design for the Environment program partners with businesses, environmental
nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders to design or redesign products,
processes, and environmental management systems that are cleaner, more cost-effective, and
safer for workers and the public. The Safer Product Labeling Program allows safer products to
carry the DfE label, which helps consumers quickly identify and choose products that are safer
and can help protect the environment. In FY 2010, the DfE Safer Product Labeling Program
authorized its logo for use on more than 500 additional products from about 100 manufacturers,
raising the total number of products bearing the label to more than 2,000 products, helping
consumers identify safer products in making more informed purchasing decisions. Tens of
millions of DfE products have been sold to consumers and institutional purchasers, reducing use
of more than 620 million pounds of hazardous materials in 2010.

In FY 2010, the DfE program conducted  18 best practices training and compliance assistance
workshops for the automotive refinishing industry, reaching 1,432 auto-refinishing professionals.
EPA estimates that the 343 shops implementing best practices could reduce 240,000 pounds of
air toxics and particulates annually and save about $1.5 million in operational costs through the
Design for Environmental emission reduction calculator for the automotive refinishing
industry.73 Particulates reduced include diisocyanates (the leading attributable chemical cause of
work-related asthma), hexavalent chromium, and lead.

Green Engineering
72 Green Chemistry Program website: www.epa. gov/greenchemistry/.
73 DfE emission reduction calculator: www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/proiects/auto/.
                                          1324

-------
The Green Engineering Program collaborates with other EPA offices, academia, and industry to
incorporate environmentally beneficial engineering approaches and tools, such as life cycle
assessment and risk-based tools, in engineering processes. In FY 2010, the Green Engineering
Program developed the Solvent Decision Support Tool, which estimates reductions in energy
use, GHGs, and other emissions to various media for the recovery of solvent streams, and cost
savings. Using this tool for Puerto Rico pharmaceutical and solvent operations, the Green
Engineering Program calculated that recovering just one solvent stream from Puerto Rico would
result in reductions of 135 billion British thermal units (BTUs), 25,000 metric tons of CC>2
equivalent, and a cost savings of up to $6 million.74 The Green Engineering Program will begin
pilot activities using the Solvent Decision Support Tool in FY 2011.

The program has nearly completed an update of the Green Engineering textbook in 2010, with
publication?5planned for 2011. As of September 2010, about 45 chemical engineering
departments at U.S. universities have either used the textbook as their primary course textbook or
have incorporated  it into other chemical engineering courses. The textbook also has also been
used in engineering curricula in China, Australia, Singapore, Mexico, and Canada. For additional
information see: www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering/.
74 "Practical Applications of Green Engineering: Solvent Recovery / Reuse in Pharmaceutical Processes," Solvent Recovery
Presentation and Webinar to Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, August 19, 2010.
75 Prentice-Hall, November 7, 2010. (AIChE, short course)

                                            1325

-------
Objective 5.3: Build Tribal Capacity
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 5.3
                        (in thousands)
            Objective 3
            $85,703.60
               10%
Objective 4
                     Goal 5 Total Obligations = $814,298.8
                                                                   FY 2010 Performance
                                                                  Measures: Objective 5.3
                                                                        Met =3
                                                                       Not Met = 0
                                                                   Data Available After
                                                                   February 7, 2011 = 0
                                                                       (Total = 3)
EPA provides funds to federally-recognized tribes to plan, develop, and establish environmental
protection programs. The Agency's Indian GAP is its core component for building tribal
capacity. In 2010, EPA demonstrated improvements in core tribal environmental program
capacity, which is critical to protecting human health and the environment in Indian Country, and
met its overall annual performance goal under this objective. The following achievements
demonstrate the Agency's efforts to improve human health and the environment in Indian
Country. For additional information, see: www.epa.gov/Indian/gap.htm

Environmental Programs in Indian Country

In FY 2010, the Agency met its three externally-reported tribal performance measures. For the
first measure, EPA  continued to implement its "Treatment in the Same Manner as a State" (TAS)
strategy, which streamlines the program approval process for establishing federal regulatory
environmental programs in Indian Country. The Agency met its FY 2010 target of 14 percent of
tribes receiving this approval.

Under its second tribal measure, EPA met its FY 2010 target of 42 percent of tribes conducting
EPA-approved environmental monitoring and  assessment activities in Indian Country. This
measure counts the number of tribes with EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plans.

Finally, EPA met its cumulative target of 65 percent of tribes having an environmental program.
This measure counts tribes that have acquired an environmental office or coordinator in the most
current year and that have met at least one of the following indicators: completed Tier III Tribal
Environmental Agreements; established laws,  codes, regulations, or ordinances signed by the
tribal government; completed solid and/or hazardous waste implementation activities; or
completed an inter-governmental environmental agreement with EPA and the tribal government.
                                          1326

-------
The measure also counts tribes that have developed environmental programs and those that are
building environmental capacity to administer environmental programs to address environmental
concerns specific to their needs. For additional information, see:
www. epa. gov/indian/laws/tas.htm

Tribal Consultation Policy Released

In addition to the externally-reported performance results achieved in FY 2010, EPA has worked
closely and consistently with its tribal and federal partners to develop and implement President
Obama's directive on Tribal Consultation.76 This policy will result in broad consultation and
coordination with tribes, thus strengthening the partnership between tribes and EPA. To date, the
Agency has developed an action plan, sought out and addressed comments, and is in the final
stages of developing its Tribal Consultation Policy. EPA anticipates implementing this policy in
FY 2011, once the policy is finalized. The policy will ensure consistent implementation of EPA's
1984 Indian Policy (http://www.epa.gov/indian/pdf/indian-policy-84.pdf) and Executive Order
13175 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2000.html).
76 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-tribal-consultation-signed-president.
                                           1327

-------
Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and Research
               FY 2010 Obligations: Objective 5.4
                        (in thousands)
            Objective 4
            $64,015.20
               8%
                    Goal 5 Total Obligations = $814,298.8
 FY 2010 Performance
Measures: Objective 5.4
       Met =3
     Not Met = 0
  Data Available After
  February?, 2011 = 0
      (Total = 3)
EPA's research programs help provide a sound scientific foundation for the decision to promote
environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes. Research develops and
evaluates new methods, approaches (decision-support tools), and technologies that stakeholders
within and outside the Agency can use to advance sustainable production processes and land
management practices.

Promoting Innovation

EPA's People, Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) program builds capacity for future generations by
challenging interdisciplinary student teams to work together in designing and building
sustainable technologies that improve quality of life, promote economic development, and
protect the environment. In FY 2010, the P3 program awarded 55 competitive grants to college
and university student teams across the country to design creative solutions to sustainability
challenges in the developed and developing world. Phase 1 awards of $10,000 were granted to
teams who developed solutions spanning media such as water, energy, built environment, and
materials and chemicals. A subset of teams was selected for Phase 2 awards of $75,000 to further
their designs, implement them in the field, and/or move them to the marketplace. All P3 grant
designs were showcased at an April 2010 Sustainability Expo Event on the National Mall.

Metrics for Sustainability

Metrics or environmental indicators are crucial for defining and advancing sustainability.  In
collaboration with EPA's Region 8, EPA's Sustainability Research Program defined and tested
the use of four sustainability metrics that captured the social, economic, and environmental
components of a system. These include environmental footprint, as characterized by ecological
footprint; economic well-being as ascertained from green net regional product; energy flow
                                           1328

-------
through the system as computed from an energy analysis; and dynamic order estimated from the
computation of Fisher information.77 These metrics were applied to the San Luis Basin, a seven-
county rural region Colorado, for the period from 1980 to 2005. Federal, state, and local officials
are using the results of this study to determine if the overall ecosystem is moving toward or away
from sustainability. A second study applied to a more urban area has been launched in Puerto
Rico. For additional information, see:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/news/022010/news022010.html.

Assessing Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Production and Use

Under the Energy Independence and  Security Act, EPA reports to Congress every three years on
the potential environmental impacts of biofuel production and makes recommendations for
protecting the environment. With new funding of $5 million in FY 2010, EPA launched a new
biofuel research program. Research planning was based on critical EPA program and regional
office needs and on advancing life cycle analysis and  multidisciplinary research. EPA also
prepared its first mandated Biofuel Report to Congress.
77 http://www.epa. gov/nrmrl/std/seb/research.html.
                                          1329

-------
                           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, tribes, businesses, and the public that promote environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: 5.1: ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH IMPROVED COMPLIANCE

Address environmental problems, promote compliance and deter violations, by achieving goals for national priorities and programs
including those with potential environmental justice concerns and those in Indian country.
PMs Met
7
PMs Not Met
2
Data Available After February 7,
2011
0
Total PMs
9
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.1: Address Environmental Problems from Air Pollution
Address Environmental Problems from Air Pollution

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 2,500 million estimated cumulative pounds of air pollutants.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(400) Reduce, treat, or eliminate
air pollutants through concluded
enforcement actions.
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
480
Actual
410

Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - FY 2005-2008 average baseline: 480 million pounds
Explanation - EPA settled multiple major enforcement cases in FY 20 10. Many more cases remain in the pipeline. Factors that affected the
results were DOJ case backlog and the ability of companies to agree to required controls due to the downturn in the economy.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, increase the total cumulative number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or
the prevention of pollution for air by 810 entities. (Note: Results reported under this strategic measure include entities that change
                                                         1330

-------
their behavior due to enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA only, and
federal inspections that result in a direct or preventative environmental benefit).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(401) Total number of regulated
entities that change behavior
resulting in direct environmental
benefits or the prevention of
pollution into the environment for
air as a result of EPA enforcement
and compliance actions.
FY 2007
Target







Actual







FY 2008
Target







Actual







FY 2009
Target







Actual







FY2010
Target
127






Actual
254







Unit
Entities






  Baseline - FY 2007-2008 average baseline: 151 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements,
  compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and federal inspections that result in direct or
  preventative environmental benefits.	
  Explanation - Targets established for the first year of a new measure may not be as accurate as measures with several years of historical
  data. In addition, two regions had specific initiatives using the compliance assistance activities under this measure, which increased the
  results. This measure will not be continued for FY 2011.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.2: Address Environmental Problems from Water Pollution
Address Environmental Problems from Water Pollution

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 1,600 million estimated cumulative pounds of water pollutants.(Note: When reporting results for
the pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated, EPA will break out the "environmentally significant" water
pollutants that affect the top five to 10  causes of impairment to waters. For this measure, these "environmentally significant" pollutants
are nutrients (with related environmental effects), mercury, other metals,  sediment/turbidity, toxic  organics, and salinity.  Other
environmentally significant water pollutants that are not measured in pounds will be normatively characterized.
                                                            1331

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(402) Reduce, treat, or eliminate
water pollutants through
concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
320
Actual
1,000

Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - FY 2005-2008 average baseline: 320 million pounds.
Explanation - Each year a small number of big cases provide the majority of pollutant reductions, which makes setting targets for pollutant
reduction measures highly uncertain. This year just eight of the cases provided 85 percent of the pollutant reductions.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, increase the total cumulative number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or
the prevention of pollution for water by 3,300 entities. (Note: Results reported under this strategic measure include entities that change
their behavior due to enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA only, and
federal inspections that result in a direct or preventative environmental benefit).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(403) Total number of regulated
entities that change behavior
resulting in direct environmental
benefits or the prevention of
pollution into the environment for
water as a result of EPA
enforcement and compliance
actions.
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
608
Actual
1,361

Unit
Entities
Baseline - FY 2007-2008 average baseline: 626 entities. Results reported under this measure include enforcement settlements, compliance
incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and federal inspections that result in direct or preventative
environmental benefits.
Explanation - Targets established for the first year of a new measure may not be as accurate as measures with several years of historical
data. In addition, two regions had specific initiatives using the compliance assistance activities under this measure, which increased the
results. This measure will not be continued for FY 201 1.
                                                            1332

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.3: Address Environmental Problems from Waste, Toxics, and Pesticides Pollution
Address Environmental Problems from Waste, Toxics, and Pesticides Pollution

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 19 million estimated cumulative pounds of toxic and pesticide pollutants(Note: EPA is analyzing
methods  for reporting out "environmentally significant" pollutants for the pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or
eliminated).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(404) Reduce, treat, or eliminate
toxics and pesticides through
concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
3.8
Actual
8.3

Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - FY 2005-2008 average baseline: 3.8 million pounds.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, reduce, treat, or eliminate 32,000 million estimated cumulative pounds of hazardous waste.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(405) Reduce, treat, or eliminate
hazardous waste through
concluded enforcement actions.
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
6,500
Actual
11,800

Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - FY 2008 baseline: 6,500 million pounds.
Explanation - Each year a small number of big cases provide the majority of pollutant reductions, which makes setting targets for pollutant
reduction measures highly uncertain. This year just two cases provided over 99 percent of the pollutant reductions.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, increase the total cumulative number of regulated entities that change behavior resulting in direct environmental benefits or
the prevention of pollution for waste, toxics,  and pesticides by 1,300. (Note: Results reported under this strategic measure include
enforcement settlements, compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA only, and federal inspections
that result in a direct or preventative environmental benefit).
                                                           1333

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(406) Total number of regulated
entities that change behavior
resulting in direct environmental
benefits or the prevention of
pollution into the environment for
land as a result of EPA
enforcement and compliance
actions.
FY 2007
Target








Actual








FY 2008
Target








Actual








FY 2009
Target








Actual








FY2010
Target
213







Actual
775








Unit
Entities







  Baseline - FY 2007-2008 average baseline: 235 entities. Results reported under this measure include: enforcement settlements,
  compliance incentive audits, direct compliance assistance delivered by EPA staff only, and federal inspections that result in direct or
  preventative environmental benefits.	
  Explanation - Targets established for the first year of a new measure may not be as accurate as measures with several years of historical
  data. In addition, two regions had specific initiatives using the compliance assistance activities under this measure, which increased the
  results. This measure will not be continued for FY 2011.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.1.4: Criminal Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, increase the severity of the crimes investigated (as measured by the percent of open high impact cases).

Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, there will be an annual recidivism rate of <1 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(407) Percent of recidivism.
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
<1
Actual
2

Unit
Percent
Baseline - FY 1998-2009 average baseline: <1 percent.
Explanation - three cases out of 198 had recidivism. (1.5 percent rounded to 2 percent). This measure will not be continued in FY 201 1.
                                                           1334

-------
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, 37 percent of closed cases will have a criminal enforcement consequence (indictment, conviction, fine, or penalty).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(408) Percent of closed cases with
criminal enforcement
consequences (indictment,
conviction, fine, or penalty).
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target

Actual

FY 2009
Target

Actual

FY2010
Target
33
Actual
35

Unit
Percent
Baseline - FY 2006-2008 average baseline: 33 percent.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, 82 percent of charged cases will have an individual that was charged. (FY 2006-2008 baseline: 78 percent).

OBJECTIVE: 5.2:  IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH  POLLUTION  PREVENTION AND
OTHER STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES

By 2014, 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.
PMs Met
1
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
5
Total PMs
6
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship
Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, reduce 20 billion pounds of hazardous materials cumulatively compared to the 2006 baseline of 0.46 billion pounds.
                                                        1335

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(264) Pounds of hazardous
materials reduced by P2 program
participants.
FY 2007
Target
414M
Actual
386.1 M
FY 2008
Target
429 M
Actual
469.8 M
FY 2009
Target
494 M
Actual
605.6 M
FY2010
Target
1,625 M
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011

Unit
Pounds
Baseline - Baseline is 4.8 billion pounds reduced through 2008 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2
Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols.
(297) MTCO2e reduced,
conserved, or offset by P2
program participants.
N/A
1.47M
N/A
1.014M
2M
1.618M
5.9 M
Data
Avail
11/2011
MTCO2e
Baseline - Baseline is 6.5 MMTC02e reduced through 2008 according to reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2
Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols.
Strategic Target (2)
By 2014, reduce, conserve, or offset 115 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTC02E) compared to the 2006 baseline
amount of 1.2 MMTCE reduced, conserved, or offset.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(261) BTUs of energy reduced,
conserved or offset by P2 program
participants.
FY 2007
Target
1,106.8
B
Actual
6,746.3
B
FY 2008
Target
1,217.4
B
Actual
7,106 B
FY 2009
Target
8,000 B
Actual
9,776.6
B
FY2010
Target
15,000 B
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011

Unit
BTUs
Baseline - Baseline is zero BTUs reduced in FY 2002 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2
Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, reduce water use by 190 billion gallons compared to the 2006 baseline amount of 2.3 billion gallons reduced.
                                                          1336

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(262) Gallons of water reduced by
P2 program participants.
FY 2007
Target
1,790 M
Actual
1.75 B
FY 2008
Target
1.64B
Actual
21.18B
FY 2009
Target
1.79B
Actual
4.67 B
FY2010
Target
26.2 B
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011

Unit
Gallons
Baseline - Baseline is 51.3 billion gallons reduced through 2008 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual
P2 Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation
protocols.
Strategic Target (4)
By 2014, save $14 billion through pollution prevention improvements in business, institutional, and government costs cumulatively
compared to the 2006 baseline of $2.1 billion dollars saved.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(263) Business, institutional and
government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
FY 2007
Target
44.3 M
Actual
282.7 M
FY 2008
Target
45. 9 M
Actual
227.2 M
FY 2009
Target
130M
Actual
276.5 M
FY2010
Target
1,060 M
Actual
Data
Avail
11/2011

Unit
Dollars
Saved
Baseline - Baseline is 3.1 billion dollars saved through 2008 according to Reports provided by EPA Regional Offices and individual P2
Programs/Results Centers based on information obtained from program participants/partners or application of results estimation protocols.
Strategic Target (5)
By 2014, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals as measured by the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities program,
Supplemental Environmental Projects, and contributions from other tools used by EPA to achieve chemical reductions throughout the
lifecycle of products.
                                                           1337

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(PBS) Number of pounds of
priority chemicals reduced from
all phases of the manufacturing
lifecycle through source reduction
and/or recycling.
FY 2007
Target
0.5
Actual
1.30
FY 2008
Target
1.0
Actual
5.70
FY 2009
Target
1.0
Actual
7.05
FY2010
Target
0.75
Actual
3.7

Unit
Million
Pounds
Baseline - In FY 2006, 1.28 million pounds of priority list chemicals were reduced.
Explanation - Over 2 million pounds of the total reduction is due to a single partner accomplishing far more than pledged in FY 2010.
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.2: Business and Community Innovation
Business and Community Innovation

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, the  participating manufacturing and service sectors in the Sector Strategies Program will achieve an aggregate 8 percent
reduction in environmental releases to air, water, and land, working from a 2006 baseline and normalized to reflect economic growth.

SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.2.3: Promote Environmental Policy Innovation
Promote Environmental Policy Innovation

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, at least 75 percent of innovation projects completed each year under the State Innovation Grant Program and other piloting
mechanisms will achieve, on average, an 8 percent or greater improvement in environmental results (such as reductions in air or water
discharges, improvements in  ambient water or air  quality,  or improvements in compliance  rates),  or a  5  percent or  greater
improvement  in cost effectiveness and efficiency.(Note: Each project's achievement will be measured by  the goals established in the
grantee's proposal. Baselines for ambient conditions or pollutant discharges or costs of compliance will be developed at the beginning
of each project, and improvements for each project will be measured after full implementation of the innovative practice).

OBJECTIVE: 5.3: 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.
                                                          1338

-------
PMs Met
3
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
0
Total PMs
3
1339

-------
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.3.1: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country

Strategic Target (1)
By 2014, increase the percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in Indian country by 18 percent. (FY
2008 baseline: 6 percent of 572 tribes).
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(5PQ) Percent of tribes
implementing federal regulatory
environmental programs in Indian
Country (cumulative).
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
6
Actual
14.16
FY 2009
Target
7
Actual
12.6
FY2010
Target
14
Actual
14

Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - FY 2005 baseline is 5 percent of 574 tribes.
Strategic Target (2)
By  2014, increase the percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and assessment activities in Indian
country by 50 percent.
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(5PR) Percent of Tribes
conducting EPA approved
environmental monitoring and
assessment activities in Indian
Country (cumulative).
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
21
Actual
42.31
FY 2009
Target
23
Actual
40
FY2010
Target
42
Actual
49.3

Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - FY 2005 baseline is 20 percent of 574 tribes.
Strategic Target (3)
By 2014, increase the percent of tribes with an environmental program by 73 percent.
                                                         1340

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(5PS) Percent of tribes with an
environmental program
(cumulative).
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
57
Actual
57
FY 2009
Target
60
Actual
64
FY2010
Target
65
Actual
68

Unit
Percent
Tribes
Baseline - FY 2005 baseline is 54 percent of 574 tribes.
OBJECTIVE: 5.4: ENHANCE SOCIETY'S CAPACITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new technology development, and sustainable systems. The
products of this research will provide critical  and key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving  complex
multimedia problems for the Agency and its partners and stakeholders.
PMs Met
3
PMs Not Met
0
Data Available After February 7,
2011
0
Total PMs
3
SUB-OBJECTIVE: 5.4.1: Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS)
STS

Strategic Target (1)
By 2011, achieve a rating of "meets expectations" or higher in independent expert review assessment of the utility of EPA research for
preventing pollution, promoting environmental stewardship, and encouraging innovation.
                                                        1341

-------
Annual Performance Measures and
Baselines
(128) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
STSs goal that decision makers
adopt ORD-identified and
developed metrics to quantitatively
assess environmental systems for
sustainability.
FY 2007
Target

Actual

FY 2008
Target
100
Actual
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Actual
100
FY2010
Target
100
Actual
1 00

Unit
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2003, the program established a baseline of 100 percent of its planned outputs met. The program strives to complete 100
percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
(129) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
STS's goal that decision makers
adopt ORD-developed decision
support tools and methodologies.


100
100
100
100
100
1 00
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2003, the program established a baseline of 75 percent of its planned outputs met. The program strives to complete 100
percent of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
(130) Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in support of
STS goal that decision makers
adopt innovative technologies
developed or verified by ORD.


100
100
100
100
100
1 00
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2003, the program established a baseline of 75 percent of its planned outputs met. The program strives to complete 100 percent
of its planned outputs each year so that it can best meet EPA and other partners' needs.
(131) Percentage of STS
publications in "high impact"
journals.


No Target
Established
Biennial
35.3
35.4
No Target
Established
Biennial
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2005, the program established a baseline of 30.4 percent of publications referenced in "high impact" journals. The "high
impact" data are based on the percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by "Thomson's
JCR."
1342

-------
                             EPA'S ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
PMs Met
8
PMs Not Met
3
Data Available After February 7,
2011
0
Total PMs
11
HUMAN CAPITAL
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(005) Average time to hire Senior
Executive Service (SES)
positions from date vacancy closes
to date offer is extended,
expressed in working days
FY 2007
Target
90
Actual
66
FY 2008
Target
73
Actual
66
FY 2009
Target
68
Actual
58.8
FY 2010
Target
68
Actual
Data Not
Avail

Unit
Days
Baseline - Baseline of 66 days was established in FY 2007.
Explanation - The percentage of GS employees (DEU) hired within 80 calendar days is 7.8 percent. Please note that this measure was
changed and agreed to by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to read "DEU positions" instead of "SES positions." While EPA did
not reach its ambitious FY 2010 goals, EPA has established a 2010 Hiring Reform Action Plan aligned with the President's six hiring
reform initiatives. These actions, once implemented, should move the Agency toward a more streamlined and effective hiring process,
increase the quality of applicants, and provide for greater management involvement and accountability throughout the hiring process.
(004) Average time to hire non-
SES positions from date vacancy
closes to date offer is extended,
expressed in working days
45
28.30
45
26.3
45
30.1
45
Data Not
Avail
Days
Baseline - Baseline of 28.3 was established in FY 2007.
                                             1343

-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual

Unit
 Explanation - The percentage of GS employees (other than DEU) hired within 80 calendar days is 15.5 percent. Please note that this
 measure was changed and agreed to by OMB to read "non-DEU positions" instead of "non-SES positions." While EPA did not reach its
 ambitious FY 2010 goals, EPA has established a 2010 Hiring Reform Action Plan aligned with the President's six hiring reform initiatives.
 These actions, once implemented, should move the Agency towards a more streamlined and effective hiring process, increase quality of
 applicants, and provide for greater management involvement and accountability throughout the hiring process.
FRAUD DETECTOIN AND DETERRENCE
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(35D) Criminal, civil,
administrative, and fraud
prevention actions (ARRA
measure)*
FY 2007
Target
80
Actual
103
FY 2008
Target
80
Actual
84
FY 2009
Target
80
Actual
95
FY 2010
Target
75
Actual
115

Unit
Actions
*The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The results from ARRA funding are being tracked
separately and can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans. html#quarterlv.
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a baseline of 83 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions.
(098) Cumulative percentage
reduction in energy consumption
6
9
9
13
12
18
15

Percent
Baseline - On January 24, 2007, the President signed the EO "Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation
Management," requiring all federal agencies to reduce their GHG intensity and energy use by 3 percent annually through FY 2015. For the
Agency's 29 reporting facilities, the FY 2003 energy consumption was 346,518 BTUs per square foot.
(3 5 A) Environmental and business
actions taken for improved
performance or risk reduction.
(ARRA measure)*
318
464
334
463
318
272
334
391
Actions
* The program which this measure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The results from ARRA funding are being tracked
separately and can be found at: http://www.epa.sov/recovery/plans. html#quarterly.
                                                          1344

-------
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
FY 2007
Target
Actual
FY 2008
Target
Actual
FY 2009
Target
Actual
FY 2010
Target
Actual

Unit
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 564 environmental and business actions taken for improved performance
or risk reduction.
(35B) Environmental and business
recommendations or risks
identified for corrective action
(ARRA measure)*
*The program which this me
separately and can be found
925
949
971
624
903
983
903
945
Recommend
ations
asure supports received funds from ARRA in FY 2010. The results from ARRA funding are being tracked
it: http://www.epa.sov/recoverv/plans. html#quarterlv.


Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 885 environmental and business risks or recommendations identified for
corrective action.
(35C) Return on the annual dollar
investment, as a percentage of the
OIG budget, from audits and
investigations
150
189
150
186
120
150
120
30
Percent
Baseline - In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 150 percent in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage of
OIG budget, from savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries, and settlements.
Explanation - Return on investment equals nearly $20 million. Target of $65 million (120 percent of OIG budget) not met as resources
normally devoted to contract and grant audits and investigations were redeployed to ARRA oversight.
1345

-------
INFORMATION EXCHANGE NETWORK
Annual Performance Measures
and Baselines
(052) Number of major EPA
environmental systems that use the
CDX electronic requirements
enabling faster receipt, processing,
and quality checking of data
FY 2007

Target
36




Actual
37




FY 2008

Target
45




Actual
48




FY 2009

Target
50




Actual
55




FY 2010

Target
60




Actual
60






Unit
Systems




Baseline - Zero. The CDX program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there was no data flows using the CDX.
(053) States, tribes and territories
will be able to exchange data with
CDX through nodes in real time,
using standards and automated
data-quality checking
55




57




55




59




60




59




65




69




Users




Baseline - Zero. The CDX program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there were no nodes for states or tribes.
(054) Number of users from states,
tribes, laboratories, and others that
choose CDX to report
environmental data electronically
to EPA
55,000




88,516




100,000




127,575




130,000




184,109




210,000




231,700




Users




Baseline - Zero. The CDX program began in FY 2001. Prior to that there were no users.
                                              1346

-------
INFORMATION SECURITY
(408) Percent of Federal
Information Security Management
Act reportable systems that are
certified and accredited
100



100



100



100



100



100



100



100



Percent



 Baseline - FISMA assigns specific responsibilities to federal agencies and to the National Institutes of Technologies and Standards (NIST)
 to strengthen information system security. This continued goal, as required by Federal Information Security Management Act
 (FISMA), is for the agency to achieve a continuous goal of 100 percent security.
                                                          1347

-------
                                    FY 2010 EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Program

Federal
Support
for Air
Quality
Manageme
nt




Measure

Cumulative
percent
reduction in
the number
of days to
process State
Implementati
on Plan
revisions,
weighted by
complexity
FY07
Target
0








FY07
Actual
0








FY08
Target
-1.2








FY08
Actual
o o
-J.J








FY09
Target
-2.4








FY09
Actual
-18








FY 2010
Target
-2.9








FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
1 2/20 1 1







Units

Percentage








Baseline - The 2007 baseline is 0 days.
Federal
Support
for Air
Quality
Manageme
nt







Cumulative
percent
reduction in
the number
of days with
(AQI values
over 100
since 2003
per grant
dollar
allocated to
the states in
support of
the NAAQS
21











31.1











25











34.4











29











31.2











33











Data
Avail
1 2/20 1 I










Percentage











Baseline - The 2003 baseline is 0 days.
Federal
Vehicle
and Fuels

Standards
Tons of
pollutants
(VOC,NOX,
M, CO)
reduced per
0.01




0.01




0.01




0.01




0.011




.011




0.011




Data
Avail
1 2/20 1 I


Tons/Doll
ar



                                                  1348

-------
Program
and
Certificati
on
Measure
total
emission
reduction
dollars spent
(both EPA
and private
industry)
FY07
Target

FY07
Actual

FY08
Target

FY08
Actual

FY09
Target

FY09
Actual

FY 2010
Target

FY 2010
Actual

Units

Baseline - The 2004 baseline is 0.016 tons/dollar.
Indoor
Air: Radon
Program
(rll) Total
cost (public
and private)
per future
premature
cancer death
prevented
through
lowered
radon
exposure.
No Target
Established
Biennial
No Target
Established
Biennial
415,000
412,000
No Target
Established
Biennial
Dollars
Baseline - The 2003 baseline is $495,000.
Reduce
Risks from
Indoor Air
(rl 3) Average
cost to EPA
per student per
year in a
school that is
implementing
an indoor air
quality plan.
No Target
Established
Biennial
No Target
Established
Biennial
1.40
Data Not
Avail
No Target
Established
Biennial
Dollars
Baseline - The 2003 baseline is $6.00.
Explanation: EPA has collaborated with CDC to integrate the measures into the CDC Schools Health Policies and Programs Survey conducted
every six years (most recently in 2006). The next survey will be conducted in 2012.
Reduce
Risks from
Indoor Air
(r!2)
Annual
cost to
EPA per
person
No Target
Established
Biennial
No Target
Established
Biennial
3.90
Data Not
Avail
No Target
Established
Biennial
Dollars
1349

-------
Program










Measure
with
asthma
taking all
essential
actions to
reduce
exposure
to indoor
environme
ntal
asthma
triggers
FY07
Target










FY07
Actual










FY08
Target










FY08
Actual










FY09
Target










FY09
Actual










FY 2010
Target










FY 2010
Actual










Units










Baseline - The 2003 baseline is $25.10.
Explanation: Data not available because the survey was not funded. The next Asthma Supplement of the National Health Interview Survey is
expected to be fielded by the CDC in 2013 and 2018.
HHRA






Average
cost to
produce
Air
Quality
Criteria/Sc
lence
Assessmen
t
documents
5,533






3,796






No Target
Established






Biennial




















4,235,000






Data
Avail
03/201!





Average
Cost in
Dollars





Baseline - When the program began producing Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents in FY 2004, the average cost to produce these
assessment documents was $13,989. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions
related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
Radiation:
Protection
Time to
approve
site
40
43
46
50
53
46
53
Data
Avail
! 2/20 1 !
Percentage
1350

-------
Program























Measure

changes
affecting
waste
characteriz
ation at
DOE
waste
generator
sites to
ensure safe
disposal of
transuranic
radioactive
waste at
WIPP
(measured
as
percentage
reduction
from a
2004
baseline)
FY07
Target






















FY07
Actual






















FY08
Target






















FY08
Actual






















FY09
Target






















FY09
Actual






















FY 2010
Target






















FY 2010
Actual






















Units























Baseline - The 2003 baseline is 0 (150 days).
Radiation:
Protection








(R38)
Population
covered by
Radiation
Protection
Program
monitors per
million
dollars
invested
4,159,000









4,418,000









4,729,000









4,536,000









5,254,000









5,228,000









5,779,900









!>.if;-t
••' -0 ! 1
P T'l ]







People per
Million
Dollars







1351

-------
Program

Measure

FY07
Target
FY07
Actual
FY08
Target
FY08
Actual
FY09
Target
FY09
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2010
Actual
Units

Baseline - The 2003 baseline is 3,033,000 people.
Radiation:
Response
Preparedn
ess






Average
time of
availability
of quality
assured
ambient
radiation air
monitoring
data during
an
emergency
1.3








1.3








1








0.8








0.8








0.8








0.7








( ! 0 > A
\ 'i '.' ; j
[.?...'.: 01 1







Days








Baseline - The 2003 baseline is 2.5 days.
Climate
Protection
Program





Tons of
GHG
(MMTCE)
prevented
per societal
dollar in the
building
sector.
No Target
Established














No Target
Established














No Target
Established














No Target
Established














MTCE per
Dollar






Baseline - Not Applicable
Climate
Protection

Program





Tons of
GHG
emissions
(MMTCE)
prevented
per societal
dollar in the
industry
sector
No Target
Established
















No Target
Established
















No Target
Established
















No Target
Established
















MTCE per
Dollar







Baseline - Not applicable
Climate
Protection
Program
Tons of
GHG
emissions
No Target
Established




No Target
Established




No Target
Established




No Target
Established




MTCE per
Dollar

1352

-------
Program







Measure

(MMTCE)
prevented
per societal
dollar in the
transportatio
n sector
FY07
Target






FY07
Actual






FY08
Target






FY08
Actual






FY09
Target






FY09
Actual






FY 2010
Target






FY 2010
Actual






Units







Baseline - Not applicable
Clean Air
Allowance
Trading
Programs















Reduction
in
exposure
to fine
particulate
matter
(PM2.5)
per total
dollar
spent on
S02
emission
reduction
(person-
mi crogram
3
m per
dollar
[2003 $])
No Target
Established




































No Target
Established




































No Target
Established




































No Target
Established




































Person-
Mi crogra
m per m3
per Dollar















Baseline - Not applicable
Federal
Support of
Air Toxics


Tons of
toxicity-
weighted
(for cancer
and
U/D









U/D









U/D









U/D









Tons




1353

-------
Program





Measure
noncancer
risk)
emissions
reduced
per total
cost ($)
FY07
Target





FY07
Actual





FY08
Target





FY08
Actual





FY09
Target





FY09
Actual





FY 2010
Target





FY 2010
Actual





Units





Baseline - Not applicable
Stratosphe
ric Ozone:
Domestic
Programs


Total
federal
dollars
spent per
school
joining the
Sun Wise
Program
525




484




485




414




455




385




433




! .'' rjff(
I::-:.: 01 1



Dollars per
School




Baseline - The 2004 baseline is $693.
1354

-------
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
Program



Surface
Water
Protection



Measure
Loading
(pounds)
of
pollutants
removed
per
program
dollar
expended
FY07
Target
285








FY07
Actual
331








FY08
Target
332








FY08
Actual
332








FY09
Target
368








FY09
Actual
368








FY 2010
Target
371








FY 2010
Actual
j .~j ,~








Units
Pounds of
Pollutants







Baseline - In 2004, 122 Ib of pollutants were removed per program dollar expended.




A 1 Qol/-Q
-Tl-lCliJJvCl
Native
Villages



(Ope)
Number of
homes that
received

improved
service per
$1 million
of state
and federal
funding
60









29









45









70









50









27









50









Avail
1








Homes









Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 40 homes that received improved service in 2004.
Categorica
1 Grant:
Pollution
Control
(Sec. 106)


Cost per
impaired
water
segment
now fully
attaining
standards
615,694






589,455






643,119






547,676






708,276






570,250






771,000






581,231






Dollars/
Segment





Baseline - In 2004, the cost per impaired water segment now fully attaining standards was $1,544,998.
                                                        1355

-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Program





Land
Protection

cmrl
ClllU
Restoration
_ ,
Research





Measure
Average time
(in days) for
technical
support centers
to process and
respond to
requests for
technical

HnniTYiprit
U-VJ\^LJ-lll^/ll L
review,
statistical
analysis, and
evaluation of
characterization
and treatability
study plans
FY07
Target
30.5

















FY07
Actual
23.4

















FY08
Target
29

















FY08
Actual
23.3

















FY09
Target
28

















FY09
Actual
22.73

















FY 2010
Target
27

















FY 2010
Actual
Data
Avail
201 1















Units
Days

















Baseline - In 2005, the program began tracking the average number of days its technical support centers take to process and respond to requests
for technical document review, statistical analysis, and the evaluation of characterization and treatability study plans for tech plans. The average
amount of time to process and respond was 35.3 days in 2005. This measure contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance
and policy decisions related to the use of land protection and restoration.
                                                        1356

-------
Program



RCRA
Corrective
Action



Measure
Percent
increase of
final remedy
components
constructed at
RCRA
corrective
action facilities
per federal,
state, and
private sector
FY07
Target
3








FY07
Actual
6.2








FY08
Target
3








FY08
Actual
7








FY09
Target
3








FY09
Actual
39.6








FY 2010
Target
3








FY 2010
Actual
-9.2








Units
Percent








Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 0.07 final remedy components constructed per million dollars.
Explanation - The FY 2010 target was 0.77 components per million dollars and the program achieved 0.925. Since the FY 2009 result was
unexpectedly high at 1.019 (39.6 percent increase), the FY 2010 result, when reported as a year-to-year percentage, "appears" to be a drop in
efficiency. The Corrective Action program's efficiency has increased by 33 percent overall from the FY 2006 baseline year to FY 2010.

RCRA Base,
Permits, and
Grants

Number of
facilities with
new or updated
controls per
million dollars
of program cost
2


3.36


3.64


3.72


3.68


3.75


3.72





Percent


Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 3.1 facilities under control (permitted) per million dollars of permitting cost.
Superfund:
Emergency
Response
and
Removal
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed
annually per
million dollars
0.92
1.04
0.93
1.049
0.94
1.298
.95

Removals
Baseline - In FY 2004, there were 0.87 removal actions annually per million dollars.
Explanation - In FY 2010 EPA had 188 removal actions with financial data. For those actions, a total of $95,629,123 was obligated.
1357

-------
Program

Superfund
Remedial
Action

Measure
Human
exposures
under control
per million
dollars
FY07
Target
6.1




FY07
Actual
6.9




FY08
Target
6.4




FY08
Actual
7.6




FY09
Target
6.7




FY09
Actual
8.5




FY 2010
Target
7.0




FY 2010
Actual





Units
Thousand




Baseline - In FY 2006, there were 6. 1 human exposures under control per million dollars, and in FY 2005, there were 5.7.


Superfund:
FpHpral
FflHIitips



Program
dollars
expended
annually per
operable unit
completing
cleanup
activities
960






846






920






898






813






696






813













Thousand






Baseline - In FY 2004, program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing cleanup was $1.207 million



Oil Spill:
Prevention,
Preparedness
and
Response



Gallons of oil
spilled to
navigable
waters per
million
program dollars
spent annually
on prevention
and
preparedness at
FRP facilities
No Target
Established









Biennial










90,000










152,165










No Target
Established









Measure
reported
on 3-
year
cycle






No Target
Established









Measure
reported
on 3 -
year
cycle






Gallons










Baseline - Not applicable.
1358

-------
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Program
Chesapeake
Bay

















Measure
Total
nitrogen
reduction
practices
implementa
tion
achieved as
a result of
agricultural
best
managemen
t practice
implementa
tion per
million
dollars to
implement
agricultural
BMPs78
FY07
Target
47,031


















FY07
Actual
43,529


















FY08
Target
48,134


















FY08
Actual
45,533


















FY09
Target
49,237


















FY09
Actual
49,237


















FY 2010
Target
49,237


















FY 2010
Actual



















Units
Pounds


















Baseline - The baseline for this measure is 43,289 Ib per million dollars.
NEP
/Coastal
Waterway
s


Program
dollars per
acre of
habitat
protected or
restored
505





492





500





909





500





659





500











Dollars





Baseline - 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
78
   The FY 2010 Performance Target assumes that the FY 2009 Farm Bill funds for the Chesapeake Bay watershed will have been spent on conservation practices that will help to reach the FY 2010

Performance Target for total nitrogen reduction.
                                                                           1359

-------
Program
Great
Lakes
Legacy
Act
Measure
Cost per
cubic yard
of
contaminate
d sediments
remediated
FY07
Target
200
FY07
Actual
121
FY08
Target
200
FY08
Actual
121
FY09
Target
200
FY09
Actual
122
FY 2010
Target
200
FY 2010
Actual
125
Units
Dollars/
Cubic
Yard
Baseline - The baseline for this measure is $1 15 per cubic yard in 2006.
Chemical
Risk
Review
and
Reduction
Reduction
in cost of
managing
PMN
submissio
ns through
the focus
meeting as
a
percentage
of baseline
year cost


Baseline
$459,800
No Target
Established

61
50
Percent
Reductions
Baseline is $46.13 per submission in FY 2009 according to OPPT's Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS) and Manage
Toxic Substances (MTS) database and EPA's Financial Data Warehouse (FDW).
Explanation: When targets were originally developed for this measure, EPA planned to shift to a purely electronic system for PMN submission,
processing and searches, but the new system as implemented is only partially electronic. Although companies are now able to submit PMNs
electronically, the submissions continue to be processed manually once received by EPA. In addition, before EPA users can access the incoming
PMNs online, any submitted in paper must be scanned manually and any submitted electronically must be uploaded manually into a data
repository. Thus, many of the anticipated cost efficiencies are no longer attainable, making it very challenging to meet the original targets.
1360

-------
Program



Chemical
Risk
Review
and
Reduction




Measure
(72A)
Percent
reduction
from
baseline
year in
total EPA
cost per
chemical
for which
proposed
AEGL
value sets
are
developed
FY07
Target
2









FY07
Actual
19.1









FY08
Target
4









FY08
Actual
17.4









FY09
Target
10









FY09
Actual
12.3









FY 2010
Target
11









FY 2010
Actual
N/A









Units
Percent
Cost
Savings








Baseline - Baseline for the percent reduction from baseline year in total EPA cost per chemical for which proposed AEGL value sets are
developed is $38,178 using a two-year average of AEGL program costs from FY 2005 through FY 2006. This cost is for both EPA employees
and contractors who contribute to developing the AEGL values. Excess performance in FY 2009 resulted in completion of Proposed values for
last of 260+ targeted chemicals, negating need for development of Proposed values for additional chemicals in FY 2010. Excess FY 2009
production recognized too late to cancel FY 2010 measure.


Endocrine
Disrupters


(108)
Contract
cost
reduction
per study
for assay
validation
efforts in
the EDSP
1




63




1




3




1




38




1




-40




Percent




1361

-------

Program

Measure
FY07
Target
FY07
Actual
FY08
Target
FY08
Actual
FY09
Target
FY09
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2010
Actual

Units
Baseline - The average cost per study was calculated based on contract costs over a five-year period (2002 to 2006). 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 is $62,175 in FY 2006. Continued high variability in the
measure results, in part, from pooling items with a broad range of costs under the in vivo studies category. In the baseline year, this category
consisted of comparatively simple, inexpensive studies while in FY 2010, complex and expensive Tier 2 studies were initiated. The calculated
cost increase reflects this shift in the program as opposed to decreased efficiency.



T p/iH-
-L/l/Cl-U-
Based
Paint Risk
_L d-lllL -LV1 OJV
Reduction
Program




(10 A) Annual
percentage of
lead-based
paint
certification
and refund
applications
that require
less than 20







days of EPA
effort to
process


90











92











91











91











92











92











92











iV-,











Percent
Certificati
on
per Refund








Baseline for percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process is 77
percent in 2004, which is
Protect

Human
Health
i X^Cll Lll
from
Pesticide
Risk
J-V1 kJJ\_
(273)
Reduced
cost per
pesticide
taken from the FLPP database records.
2



occupational
incident

avoided


2






2






6






6






N/A






8






N/A






Cumulativ
e Percent
Reduction




Baseline - Based on FY 2001 to 2003 data, the cost avoided for occupational pesticide incidents is $1 1,550 per incident avoided. PCC Data is no
longer available to the program at the "worker/occupational" level as needed to calculate the results for this measure. This measure has been
replaced by a new measure and will be reporting starting in FY 2012 using data reported in the American Association of Poison Control Center's
National Poisoning Data System.
1362

-------
Program

Prntpot trip
J- 1 VJLV/^L LllV^
Environme
nt from
Pesticide
Risk
J-Vl kJJ\_


FY07
Measure _,
Target
(275)
Average cost
and average
time to
produce or
update an
Endangered
Species
Bulletin
10 ($3,600
& 90 hrs)






FY07
Actual
Data Not
Avail






FY08
Target
19 ($3,240 &
81 hrs)






FY08
Actual
Data Not
Avail






FY09
Target
28 ($2,916 &
73 hrs)






FY09
Actual
Data Not
Avail






FY 2010
Target
35% ($2625
& 66 hours)






FY 2010
Actual
N/A







Units
Cumulativ
e Percent
Reduction





Baseline - Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species Bulletin in FY 2004 is $4,000 and 100 hours. No bulletins
were issued in 2010 to assess efficiency due to ongoing litigation.



Realize the
Value
from
Pesticide
Availabilit
y



(274) Reduce
cost per acre
r
using reduced
risk pest
management
practices
compared to
the grant
and/or
contract funds
expended on
environmenta
1 stewardship
























2%
($2.577
Acre)









2%
($2.577
Acre)









4%
($2.527
Acre)









4%
($2.527
Acre)









6%
($2.47/Acre)











. •• ' :. " ".. • •• '










Cumulativ
e Percent
Reduction
(Dollar/
Acre)







Baseline - For FY 2005, funding of Strategic Agriculture Initiative grants resulted in $2.63 per acre impacted.
1363

-------
Program





Research:
Human
Health and
Ecosystem
s








Measure
Average
time (in
days) to
process
research
grant
proposals
from RFA
closure to
submittal
to EPA's
Grants
Administr
ation
Division
while
maintainin
ga
credible
and
efficient
competitiv
e merit
review
system
FY07
Target
307
















FY07
Actual
254
















FY08
Target
292
















FY08
Actual
250
















FY09
Target
277
















FY09
Actual
270
















FY 2010
Target
250
















FY 2010
Actual
Avail
1
















Units
Average
Days
















Baseline - In 2003, the program began tracking its average grants processing time and developed a baseline of 405 days. This measure
contributes to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
1364

-------
Program
Ecological
Research
and
Ecosystem
s
Measure
Percent
variance
from
planned
cost and
schedule
FY07
Target
-11.65
FY07
Actual
-0.3
FY08
Target
-9.6
FY08
Actual
Data Not
Avail
FY09
Target
-7.6
FY09
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2010
Target
-5.6
FY 2010
Actual
Not
Avail
Units
Percent
Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research
outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining
the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program
totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal
level of cost effectiveness.
Global
Change
Research
Percent
variance
from
planned
cost and
schedule






No Target
Establishe
d
Not
Avail
Percent
Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research
outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining
the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program
totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal
level of cost effectiveness.
Research:
Pesticides
and Toxics
Percent
variance
from
planned
cost and
schedule
-10
-8.7
-8
Data Not
Avail
-6
Data Not
Avail
-5
Not
Avail
Percent
1365

-------
Program
Measure
FY07
Target
FY07
Actual
FY08
Target
FY08
Actual
FY09
Target
FY09
Actual
FY 2010
Target
FY 2010
Actual
Units
Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research
outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining
the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program
totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal
level of cost effectiveness.
Research:
NAAQS
Research
(ORD)
Percent
variance
from
planned
cost and
schedule
N/A
-5.3
Data Not
Avail
Data Not
Avail
Data Not
Avail
Data Not
Avail
No Target
Establishe
d
Not
Avail
Percent
Baseline - This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent to which it delivers annual research
outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining
the difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each long-term goal, 2) adding these data together to generate program
totals, and 3) dividing the earned value of all work completed by the actual cost of all program activities. 100 percent or above represents an ideal
level of cost effectiveness.
1366

-------
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Program




P2 Program



Measure
(279)
Annual
reductions
of DfE
chemicals
of concern
per federal
dollar
invested in
the DfE
program.
FY07
Target








FY07
Actual








FY08
Target
90







FY08
Actual
153







FY09
Target
100







FY09
Actual
303







FY 2010
Target
110







FY 2010
Actual
3 ':• :~'







Units
Pound/Dollar







Baseline - The baseline for percent change for pounds of chemicals reduced from the DfE program is 72 lbs/$ for FY 2006.

P2 Program

(298)
Energy
savings per
dollar
invested in
the FEC
program
Baseline


0.79 M


1M


1.4 M


1.31 M


1.66M


1.89M


Avail
10/2011


BTUs/Dollar


Baseline - The baseline for energy saved per dollar invested in 2007 is 0.79 million BTUs/dollar.
                                                     1367

-------
RCRA:
Waste
Minimization
& Recycling
Number of
pounds of
priority
chemicals
reduced
from the
environment
per
federal
government
costs
                              1.5
1.2
0.422
2.59
0.429
3.35
0.435
Percent
Baseline - The 2007 baseline for pounds reduced per government costs is 1.3 percent.
Explanation: The bulk of the FY 2010 result came from the Con Edison Company of New York and Public Service Electric and Gas. Con
Edison Company of New York achieved 1,168,607 Ib lead reduction by replacing underground lead cabling with lead-free substitute. Public
Service Electric and Gas achieved 1,461,762 Ib lead reduction through the replacement of underground lead cabling.
                                                             1368

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Acquisition Management	241, 247, 509, 514, 515, 663, 666, 726, 730, 731, 784, 787, 800, 801, 1087, 1092, 1093
Administrative Law	240,247,475, 1087
Agency Financial Report	1116
Air Toxics	272,274,281,323,489,928
Air Toxics Monitoring	274
Alaska Native Villages	861,866,869
Alternative Dispute Resolution	241, 247, 477, 662, 666, 719, 1087, 1092
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act	340, 369, 512, 519, 645, 729, 737, 765, 803, 809, 810, 861, 863, 868,
   872,878,990, 1112, 1119, 1176
Analytical Methods	115, 1172
Annual Performance Report	318,331,1113,1115, 1116,1117
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations	641, 643, 645, 662, 664, 672, 1089, 1090

B

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)	761, 1014
Beach / Fish Programs	242,249,612, 1089
BRAC	552,689,761,762,763,772, 1014
Brownfields	6, 37, 38, 41, 43, 64, 215, 239, 243, 244, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 377, 493, 598, 647, 673, 751, 759,
   768, 852, 856, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 888, 889, 965, 1010, 1012, 1044, 1064, 1068, 1072, 1084, 1095,
   1096, 1107, 1112,  1119, 1125, 1209, 1235,  1247, 1248, 1273, 1274, 1275
Brownfields Projects	852,856,871,889, 1095

C

CASTNET	73,75,252
Categorical Grant
   Beaches Protection	852,856,886, 1096
   Brownfields	852,856,888, 1096
   Environmental Information	852,856,890, 1096
   Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	852,857,893, 1096
   Homeland Security	857, 1096
   Lead	852,857,895, 1096
   Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)	852, 857, 902, 1096
   Pesticides Enforcement	852,857,906, 1096
   Pesticides Program Implementation	852,857,908, 1096
   Pollution Control (Sec.  106)	852,857,911, 1096
   Pollution Prevention	852,857,918, 1096
   Public Water System Supervision	852,857,920, 1096
   Radon	852,857,924, 1096
   Sector Program	857, 1096
   State and Local Air Quality Management	852,857,926, 1096
   Targeted Watersheds	857, 1096
   Toxics Substances Compliance	852, 857, 930, 1096
   Tribal Air Quality Management	852,857,932, 1096
   Tribal General Assistance Program	852,857,934, 1097
   Underground Injection Control	852,857,938, 1097
   Underground Storage Tanks	599,812,853,857,941,1097
   Water Quality Cooperative Agreements	857, 1097
   Wetlands Program Development	853,857,944, 1097
Categorical Grants	579, 589, 852, 856, 858, 885, 886, 888, 890, 893, 895, 898, 899, 902, 906, 908, 911, 918, 920,
   924, 926, 930, 932, 934, 938, 941, 944, 1095, 1097
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	241, 247, 511, 663, 666, 736, 784, 787, 802, 1087, 1092, 1094

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX

Chemical and Pesticide Risks	547, 1017
Chesapeake Bay...3, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 61, 63, 240, 245, 317, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 425,
   500, 604, 635, 636, 890, 961, 1006, 1007, 1032, 1039, 1040, 1084, 1107, 1126, 1127, 1235, 1253, 1259, 1283,
   1284, 1285,  1308, 1309, 1355
Children and other Sensitive Populations	414
Children and Other Sensitive Populations
   Agency Coordination	240,246,414, 1086
Civil Enforcement...61, 62, 63, 105, 239, 245, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 322, 324, 325, 327, 330, 332, 599, 691, 694,
   784, 786, 789, 790, 792, 793, 820, 822, 825, 827, 828, 830, 831, 1023, 1084, 1093, 1094
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance	241,247,479, 1087
Clean Air	73, 251, 253, 254, 264, 265, 283, 285, 287, 288, 323, 339, 503, 932, 933, 1022, 1060
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs	65,67,72,75,239,244,251,253, 1079, 1083, 1133, 1349
Clean Air and Climate ....65, 67, 71, 72, 76, 80, 83, 85, 239, 244, 250, 251, 255, 265, 271, 281, 283, 287, 1079, 1083
Clean Air and Global Climate Change	197, 1113, 1122, 1124, 1130, 1344
Clean and Safe  Water	205,209, 1113, 1122, 1124, 1170, 1351
Clean School Bus Initiative	856, 1095
Clean Water	264, 323, 358, 383, 384, 602, 605, 610, 633, 641, 827, 830, 860, 902, 903, 911, 946, 1002, 1006
Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development	6, 34, 35, 977
Climate Protection Program	65, 67, 76, 239, 244, 255, 1079, 1083, 1348
Commission for Environmental Cooperation	243,421,423,585,994, 1024, 1235
Communities....6, 8, 10, 20, 23, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 45, 53, 61, 65, 66, 69, 70, 113, 145, 162, 165, 169, 170, 182, 183,
   184, 189, 190, 201, 213, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 279, 294,
   304, 335, 396, 415, 416, 417, 421, 430,431, 436, 442, 448, 459, 467, 491, 492, 493, 495, 543, 544, 549, 554, 558,
   597, 642, 663, 666, 681, 698, 739, 740, 741, 743, 744, 750, 755, 758, 764, 772, 774, 778, 779, 780, 781, 783,
   784, 787, 805, 808, 811, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 823, 836, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 869, 871,
   888, 893, 899, 934, 941, 943, 965, 977, 997, 1010, 1037, 1067, 1082, 1092, 1094, 1095, 1113, 1122,  1125, 1140,
   1150, 1205,  1233, 1247, 1248, 1266, 1312, 1355
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)	39,245,396, 1085, 1235
Compliance..4, 36, 42, 43, 56, 58, 59, 62, 232, 239, 241, 244, 245, 247, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316,
   317, 318, 319, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 333, 359, 365, 366, 426, 428, 437, 440, 466, 467, 472, 479, 480, 483,
   499, 500, 501, 503, 534, 551, 552, 569,572, 591, 597, 599, 618, 620, 624, 642, 646, 662, 665, 677, 678, 679, 693,
   712, 782, 784, 786, 790, 791, 792, 805, 811, 820, 822, 824, 825, 827, 828, 831, 837, 839, 852, 857, 891, 906,
   930, 955, 976, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1051, 1053, 1054, 1060,  1068, 1073, 1076, 1084, 1087, 1090, 1093, 1094,
   1096, 1113,  1122, 1127, 1144, 1204, 1304, 1306, 1308,  1309, 1311, 1316, 1363
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship	232,782, 1113, 1122, 1127, 1304, 1363
Compliance Assistance and Centers	239, 244, 309, 311, 318, 326, 784, 786, 790, 792, 820, 822, 825, 1084, 1093,
   1094
Compliance Incentives	239, 244, 311, 312, 326, 665, 792, 825, 828, 1084, 1090, 1306
Compliance Monitoring	62, 239, 244, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 319, 333, 599, 662, 665, 678, 679, 693,
   792, 820, 822, 825, 827, 828, 1084, 1090, 1094
Computational Toxicology	166, 213, 214
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations	240, 246, 420, 1086
Congressionally Mandated Projects	70,249,858, 1083, 1089, 1097
Corrective Action	555,894, 1015
Criminal Enforcement ...60, 63, 239, 245, 327, 329, 330, 332, 489, 662, 665, 690, 691, 692, 1023, 1084, 1091, 1312,
   1330

D

Decontamination	68, 111, 114, 115, 246, 665, 700, 774, 1080, 1085, 1091
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program	852, 856, 877, 1095
Drinking Water	156, 193, 205, 617, 618, 620, 687, 865, 920, 938
Drinking Water Programs	66,70,192,242,249,617,818, 1082,1089

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Ecosystem Protection	1235
Ecosystems 22, 66, 70, 73, 146, 151, 154, 174, 184, 185, 189, 201, 212, 213, 216, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 229,
   232, 235, 237, 239, 241, 248, 249, 252, 343, 358, 369, 372, 373, 377, 381, 382, 383, 387, 393, 395, 396, 400,
   441, 459, 528, 534, 540, 545, 553, 572,583, 600, 601, 604, 606, 627, 633, 741, 772, 779, 815, 817, 846, 847, 850,
   860, 869, 880, 902, 911, 944, 954, 973, 979, 1001, 1082, 1089,  1113, 1122, 1125, 1160,  1180, 1233, 1355, 1360,
   1361
eManifest	248, 1088
Endocrine Disrupters	70, 174, 215, 216, 217, 218, 235, 241, 248, 525, 547, 647, 1082, 1088, 1357
Energy Star	129,255,507,725
Energy STAR	244, 1083
Enforcement 4, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 104, 105, 239, 245, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315, 317, 318, 319, 321, 322,
   323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332, 333, 335, 339, 359, 365, 431, 440, 489, 498, 599, 662, 665, 678, 680,
   681, 683, 684, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692,693, 694, 784, 786, 788, 789, 790, 792, 793, 820, 822, 825, 827, 828, 829,
   830, 831, 852, 857, 906, 914, 930, 955, 976, 1016, 1022, 1023,  1024, 1025, 1052, 1053,  1054, 1068, 1076, 1079,
   1084, 1090, 1091, 1093, 1094, 1096, 1107, 1204, 1210, 1306, 1308, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316,
   1330
Enforcement Training	60, 239, 245, 317, 319, 329, 333, 662, 665, 690, 693, 1023, 1084, 1091
Enforcing Environmental Laws	6, 9, 11, 55, 56, 105, 309, 311, 313, 322, 329, 333, 406, 678, 683, 688, 690, 693,
   694, 697, 789, 792, 825, 827, 830, 906, 930, 943, 1022
Enhance Science and Research	197, 201, 205, 209, 213, 216, 219, 222, 228, 232, 237, 778, 814, 845, 1113, 1114,
   1151,1180,1216, 1257,1324
Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution.... 6, 9, 11, 47, 48, 62, 113, 133, 136,  140, 162, 176, 339,
   409, 414, 430, 431, 439, 452, 457, 525, 529, 535, 542, 546, 563, 574, 584, 588, 698, 746, 895, 908, 918, 943,
   978, 1017
Environmental Education	240, 246, 375, 401, 417, 418, 419, 422, 1028, 1086
Environmental Information	1030
Environmental Justice	39, 48, 63, 186, 239, 245, 305, 325, 335, 336, 337, 340, 398, 607, 643, 662, 665, 681, 873,
   1010, 1084, 1090, 1126, 1176, 1235, 1249, 1312
EPAIG Comments on FY 2012 Budget	990, 1109
Exchange Network ....240, 246, 319, 424, 426, 428, 466, 467, 472, 662, 665, 705, 706, 707, 712, 855, 890, 891, 892,
   1031, 1032, 1033, 1077, 1086, 1091
Expected Benefits of the President's E-Government Initiatives	990

F

Facilities Infrastructure and Operations...65, 68, 69, 128, 130, 241, 247, 506, 509, 515, 652, 654, 659, 661, 662, 666,
   724, 726, 731, 784, 787, 798, 799, 820, 823, 842, 1080, 1081, 1087, 1090, 1092, 1093, 1095
Federal Stationary Source Regulations	92,239,244,265, 1083
Federal Support for Air Quality Management	65,67,80,81,83,239,244,271,281,878,932, 1079, 1083, 1344
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program	65, 67, 81, 83, 239, 244, 278, 281, 1079, 1083
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification	65, 67, 81, 83, 85, 93, 1079, 1344
Forensics Support	65, 68, 105, 662, 665, 694, 1079, 1091
FY 2011 High Priority Performance Goals	990

G

General Counsel 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 481, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506,
   511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800,
   802, 833, 842, 890
Geographic Program
   Chesapeake Bay	240,245,358, 1084
   Great Lakes	245, 1084
   Gulf of Mexico	240,245,387, 1085
   Lake Champlain	240,245,393, 1085
   Long Island Sound	240,245,383, 1084

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX

   Other	240,245,396, 1085
Geographic Programs	31, 239, 245, 342, 343, 358, 369, 373, 377, 381, 383, 387, 393, 396, 1084, 1085, 1235
Great Lakes	343, 358, 605, 610, 612, 614, 886, 945, 1000, 1006
Great Lakes Legacy Act	28,29,249,345,357,358, 1089, 1356
Great Lakes Restoration	3,24,28,29,240,245,343,344,351,352,357, 1006, 1084, 1126, 1251
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry	244,946, 1083
Gulf of Mexico	388, 603, 628, 630, 1004, 1008

H

Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance	893, 894
Healthier Indoor Air	1113,1139
Healthier Outdoor Air	1113, 1134
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems	201,213,216,219,222,232,237,459, 1113, 1122, 1125, 1233, 1355
Homeland Security ..26, 30, 41, 43, 54, 65, 68, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 119, 121, 165, 224, 240, 245, 246,
   301, 302, 344, 359, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 409, 410, 411, 437, 464, 534, 550, 652, 654, 655, 656, 661, 662,
   665, 696, 697, 698, 702, 710, 753, 755, 799, 857, 981, 996, 997, 999, 1007, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1027, 1029, 1033,
   1056, 1079, 1080, 1085, 1086, 1090,  1091, 1096, 1145, 1204, 1235, 1302
   Communication and Information	240, 245, 403, 1085
   Critical Infrastructure Protection	65, 68, 108, 240, 245, 246, 406, 662, 665, 697, 1080, 1085, 1091
   Preparedness, Response, and Recovery	65,68, 113,240,246,409,662,665,698, 1080, 1085, 1091
   Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure .... 65, 68, 121, 240, 246, 411, 652, 654, 656, 662, 665, 702, 1080,
     1085, 1090, 1091
HR Shared Service Center	523
Human Health	22, 34, 38, 44, 53, 65, 66, 69, 70, 108, 111, 133, 134, 146, 151, 154, 163, 165, 173, 174, 175, 176,
   184, 185, 189, 191, 192, 194, 212, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 228, 229, 235, 239, 241,
   242, 248, 249, 346, 406, 410, 441, 528, 529,534, 540, 545, 553, 572, 583, 611, 612, 617, 663, 666, 741, 746, 772,
   779, 815, 817, 846, 847, 850, 865, 886, 920, 938, 952, 970, 971, 979, 999, 1016, 1081, 1082, 1088, 1089,  1093,
   1113, 1173, 1235, 1267, 1294, 1336,  1358, 1360
Human Health Risk Assessment	53, 66, 70, 163, 165, 173, 175, 176, 215, 218, 226, 228, 235, 239, 663, 666, 746,
   979, 1082,  1093, 1235
Human Resources Management	241, 247, 520, 663, 666, 733, 735, 1087, 1092, 1100

/

Indoor Air.... 15, 18, 65, 67, 68, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 239, 244, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 300, 662, 664,
   668, 669, 925, 995, 1079, 1083, 1084, 1090, 1113, 1133, 1139,  1162, 1345
   RadonProgram	65, 67, 96, 239, 244, 291, 1079, 1083
Information Exchange / Outreach	240, 246, 413, 414, 417, 420, 424, 430, 433, 436, 439, 442, 662, 665, 704, 705,
   1086, 1091
Information Security.. 126, 240, 247, 327, 403, 404, 428, 463, 464, 465, 473, 513, 534, 553, 557, 572, 583, 595, 646,
   650, 662, 666, 707, 709, 710, 711, 716, 717, 772, 834, 987, 1032, 1056, 1066, 1086, 1092, 1343
Infrastructure Assistance	448, 852, 856, 860, 865, 869, 880, 1095
   Alaska Native Villages	852, 856, 869, 1095
   Clean Water SRF	852,856,860, 1095
   Drinking Water SRF	852,856,865, 1095
   Mexico Border	852,856,880, 1095
Inspector General...3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488,
   497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 551, 641, 643, 645, 650, 651, 656, 659, 664, 672, 675, 676, 702, 705, 709,
   712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 943, 1033,  1034, 1066, 1089, 1090,
   1119
Integrated Environmental Strategies	241,247,491,493, 1087
International Programs	240,246,447,448,452,457, 1086
International Sources of Pollution	240,246,452, 1086, 1235
IT/DataManagement...65, 68, 123, 124, 240, 247, 462, 463, 466, 662, 666, 708, 709, 712, 784, 786, 794, 795, 820,
   822, 832, 833, 1080, 1086, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX

IT / Data Management / Security...65, 68, 123, 124, 240, 247, 462, 463, 466, 662, 666, 708, 709, 712, 784, 786, 794,
   795, 820, 822, 832, 833, 1080, 1086, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094
Laboratory Preparedness and Response	68, 665, 1080, 1091
Lake Champlain	358,605,610,945
Lake Pontchartrain	245, 397, 400, 401, 1085, 1235
Land Preservation and Restoration	175,228,229,778,779,814,845, 1113, 1122,  1125, 1202, 1352
Land Protection ...66, 184, 189, 190, 207, 227, 228, 663, 741, 743, 744, 777, 778, 784, 813, 814, 815, 818, 819, 820,
   844, 845, 846, 850, 851, 982, 1204, 1231, 1352
Lead	332,589,592,618,619,620,896,1020
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review .... 240, 247, 474, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 491, 497, 503, 662,
   666, 718, 719, 721, 1086, 1087, 1092
Legal Advice
   Environmental Program	241, 247, 483, 662, 666, 721, 1087, 1092
   Support Program	241,247,486, 1087
Libraries	1020
Long Island Sound	383,386
LUST /UST	241, 248, 596, 597, 784, 787, 804, 805, 808, 811, 1089, 1094
LUST Cooperative Agreements	784, 787, 808, 1094
LUST Prevention	784, 787, 811, 812, 1094

M

Marine Pollution	242, 249, 627, 632, 1004, 1089
Methane to markets	244, 1083
Mexico Border40, 240, 246, 448, 642, 852, 854, 856, 880, 881, 882, 963, 1011, 1066, 1086, 1095,  1236, 1248, 1275
Mississippi River Basin	3, 32, 240, 245, 317, 319, 381, 382, 390, 603,  1084, 1256, 1287
Monitoring Grants	857, 1096
Multi-Media Tribal Implementation	442, 852, 857, 899, 934, 935, 1078, 1096

TV

NAAQS	53, 80, 177, 265, 271, 272, 274, 926, 927
Nanotechnology	163, 173, 175, 215, 218, 226, 235, 239, 1020
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways	241,249,601, 1089
NEPA Implementation	239,245,327,339,340,1084

O

OAR	18
OARM121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517,
   520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842,
   890, 1029
OCFO  121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517,
   520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 685, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833,
   842, 890, 1029, 1058
OECA	955,  1054, 1308, 1316
OEI.... 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 469, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514,
   517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833,
   842, 890, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1056, 1077
Office of Environmental Information 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488,
   497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736,
   795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 943, 1030, 1063
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488,
   497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736,
   795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890, 1029, 1063

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX

OGC... 121, 124, 128, 403, 411, 420, 424, 433, 463, 466, 475, 477, 479, 483, 486, 488, 497, 503, 506, 511, 514, 517,
   520, 645, 656, 659, 672, 702, 705, 709, 712, 719, 721, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 795, 798, 800, 802, 833, 842, 890
Oil..3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 19, 36, 41, 43, 46, 58, 101, 102, 103, 114, 124, 128, 183, 185, 215, 228, 300, 302, 309, 313, 322,
   332, 405, 410, 466, 472, 485, 487, 506, 510, 659, 661, 678, 697, 701, 712, 724, 727, 740, 752, 755, 778, 789,
   792, 795, 798, 814, 817, 820,822, 825, 827, 828, 830, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 840, 842, 845, 846, 849, 851,
   900, 976, 977, 1016, 1067, 1094, 1095, 1128,  1136, 1145, 1204, 1212, 1214, 1216, 1309, 1354
Oil Spill
   Prevention, Preparedness and Response	820,822,836, 1094, 1354
Operations and Administration65, 68, 69, 127, 128, 241, 247, 505, 506, 511, 514, 517, 520, 652, 654, 658, 659, 662,
   666, 723, 724, 728, 730, 733, 736, 784, 787, 797, 798, 800, 802, 820, 823, 841, 842, 1080, 1081, 1087, 1090,
   1092, 1093, 1094, 1095
ORD	166, 169, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 1199, 1216, 1338, 1362
OSWER	559
OW	983, 1054, 1199

P
PERFORMANCE - 4 YEAR ARRAY	945, 979
Performance and Accountability Report	1116, 1315
Pesticides Licensing	51, 65, 69, 132,  133, 136, 140, 241, 248, 524, 529, 535, 542, 546, 1081, 1088, 1235
Pollution Prevention	79, 264, 410, 840, 918, 919, 1021
Pollution Prevention Program	166, 237, 241, 248, 398, 574, 579, 918, 1088, 1307
Potomac Highlands	401
Preserve Land	34, 38, 549, 558, 597, 805, 811, 893, 941, 966, 1013, 1113, 1205
Protect Human Health	22, 65, 69, 108, 111, 133, 134, 154, 192, 241, 248, 406, 410, 529, 534, 612, 617, 865, 886,
   920, 938, 952, 971, 999, 1081, 1088, 1113,  1173, 1267, 1358
Protect the Ozone Layer	1113, 1141
Protect Water Quality	1113, 1176
Protecting America's Waters	23, 61, 943, 999, 1125
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)	920
Puerto Rico	863
Puget Sound	240, 245, 373, 374,  375, 604, 630, 963, 1084, 1235, 1256, 1291, 1292

R
Radiationl2, 15, 18, 19, 65, 67, 68, 95, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 113, 114, 116, 177, 178, 197, 239, 244, 290, 291,
   294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 363, 398, 466, 660, 661, 662, 664, 668, 669, 670, 774, 898, 925, 951, 997, 998, 1036,
   1060, 1068, 1079, 1083, 1084, 1090, 1113,  1133, 1139, 1140, 1144, 1145, 1164, 1165, 1346, 1347, 1348
   Protection	65, 68, 100, 239, 244, 297, 662, 664, 669, 1079, 1083, 1090
   Response Preparedness	65,68,102,239,244,300, 1079, 1083
Radon	97,293,924,925
RCRA
   Corrective Action	241,248,554, 1088
   Waste Management	241,248,549, 1088
   Waste Minimization & Recycling	241,248,558, 1088
Recovery Act -EPM	3
Recovery Act -IG	3
Recovery Act - LUST	3
Recovery Act - SF	3
Recovery Act - STAG	3
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions	559, 1113, 1147
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air	65,68,98,239,244,294, 1079, 1083, 1345
Regional Science and Technology	241, 247, 488, 1087
Regions	39, 518,  756, 983, 993, 1014, 1017,  1024, 1038, 1041, 1043, 1053, 1193, 1215
Regulatory Innovation	491
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis	241, 247, 497, 1087

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX

Rent	68, 247, 666, 787, 823, 1080, 1087, 1092, 1093, 1095
Research
   Air, Climate and Energy	69, 144, 1081
   Chemical Safety and Sustainability	70, 162, 176,666,746, 1082, 1092
   Drinking Water	983
   Global Change	983
   Pesticides and Toxics	984
   Safe and Sustainable Water Resources	69, 154, 1081, 1082
   Sustainability	179
   Sustainable Communities	69,70, 183, 1082
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)	40, 61, 126, 228, 241, 248, 313, 323, 368, 401, 405, 428, 473,
   487, 548, 549, 553, 554, 557, 558, 561, 579, 632, 707, 717, 834, 893, 941, 1024, 1054, 1061, 1088, 1125
Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems	400
Restore Land	34, 38, 40, 554, 597, 698, 750, 755, 756, 758, 764, 774, 775, 805, 808, 836, 893, 967, 1014, 1113,
   1208

S

Safe Building	68, 114, 115, 119, 1080
Safe Buildings	114, 115,119
San Francisco Bay	240,245,369,371,372,604, 1084
Science Advisory Board....49, 114, 147, 156, 157, 158, 164, 186,206,241,247,503,504,581,589,591,741, 1026,
   1028, 1087, 1242
Science Policy and Biotechnology	241,248,546,547, 1088
Security 26, 30, 41,43, 54, 61,65, 68, 86, 103, 107,  108,  109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124,
   126, 131, 149, 151, 165, 224, 234, 240, 245, 246, 247, 259, 301, 302, 324, 327, 344, 359, 402, 403, 404, 405,
   406, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414,416, 428, 437, 438, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 473, 513, 534, 550, 553, 557, 572,
   583, 595, 646, 648, 650, 652, 654, 655, 656, 657, 660, 661, 662, 665, 666, 674, 696, 697, 698, 702, 707, 708,
   709, 710, 711, 712, 716, 717, 753, 755, 772, 784, 786, 794, 795, 799, 820, 822, 832, 833, 834, 981, 987, 994,
   996, 997, 999, 1007, 1012, 1015, 1021, 1023, 1027, 1032, 1033, 1035, 1056, 1064, 1066, 1079, 1080, 1085,
   1086, 1087, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094,  1137, 1145, 1204, 1235, 1302, 1325, 1343
Sign Language	522
Small Business Ombudsman	240,246,430,431, 1028, 1086
Small Minority Business Assistance	240,246,433, 1086
Smart Growth	38,39,492,493,495,599,1235
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness	36,43,240,246,436, 1086, 1236
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)	448, 574, 852, 856, 859, 860, 865, 869, 871, 877, 880, 883, 1095
Stratospheric Ozone
   Domestic Programs	239, 244, 283, 1083, 1350
   Multilateral Fund	239,244,287, 1083
Sunwise	286
Superfund
   Emergency Response and Removal	663, 666, 750, 1093
   Enforcement	662,665,683, 1090
   EPA Emergency Preparedness	663, 667, 755, 1093
   Federal Facilities	663,667,758, 1093
   Federal Facilities Enforcement	662,665,688, 1024, 1090
   Remedial	663,667,764, 1093, 1112
   Support to Other Federal Agencies	663,667,774, 1093
Superfund Special Accounts	990
Surface Water Protection	242, 249, 381, 603, 633, 645, 916, 1089, 1172, 1351

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2012 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
INDEX
Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality.... 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 72, 76, 80, 83, 85, 96, 98, 100, 102,
   113, 144, 251, 255, 265, 271, 281, 283, 287, 291, 294, 297, 300, 406, 669, 877, 883, 898, 924, 926, 932, 943,
   945, 977, 992
Targeted Airshed Grants	852, 856, 883, 1095
test 14, 40, 46, 53, 85, 87, 90, 92, 97, 106, 137, 141, 165, 173, 213, 216, 225, 256, 258, 259, 275, 291, 292, 348, 390,
   449, 525, 526, 527, 567, 620, 694, 699, 756, 850, 972, 1019, 1047, 1048, 1050, 1054, 1126, 1136, 1149, 1169,
   1180, 1217, 1243
Toxic Research and Prevention	66, 236, 237
Toxic Substances
   Chemical Risk Management	241,248,584, 1088
   Chemical Risk Review and Reduction	241,248,563, 1088
   Lead Risk Reduction Program	241,248,588,896, 1088
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention	241, 248, 525, 562, 563, 574, 584, 588, 1088, 1089
Trade and Governance	240, 246, 457, 1086, 1236
TRI/Right to Know	240,246,439, 1086
Tribal - Capacity Building	240,246,442, 1086
Tribal General Assistance Program	442

U

Underground Storage Tanks	317,789,792, 1015
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST/UST)	241, 248, 596, 597, 784, 787, 804, 805, 808, 811, 1089, 1094
US Mexico Border	240,246,448, 1086
Utilities	28,68, 111,247,618,666, 1000, 1038, 1080, 1087, 1092, 1257

W

Waste Management	549,550,893, 1013
Water
   Ecosystems	248, 249, 601, 606, 1089
   Human Health Protection	66, 191, 242, 249, 611, 612, 617, 1089
Water Quality	377,378,536,632,911, 1001, 1006, 1009
Water Quality Monitoring	377,378, 1003
Water Quality Protection	242,249,377,378,626,627,633, 1089, 1255
Water Sentinel	68, 1080
Wetlands..241, 249, 351, 358, 377, 378, 395, 602, 604, 605, 606, 608, 609, 610, 645, 853, 857, 944, 945, 958, 1005,
   1064, 1067, 1071, 1089, 1097, 1236, 1251, 1279

-------
FY 2012 Verification  and  Validation

GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Mitigate Greenhouse Gases

   •  Million  metric  tons  of carbon  equivalent  (mmtce)  of greenhouse  gas
      emissions reduced in the buildings sector (program assessment measure)
   •  Million  metric  tons  of carbon  equivalent  (mmtce)  of greenhouse  gas
      emissions reduced in the industry sector (program assessment measure)
   •  Million  metric  tons  of carbon  equivalent  (mmtce)  of greenhouse  gas
      emissions  reduced in  the  transportation  sector  (program  assessment
      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 (CC^) 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 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.

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 ENERGY STAR and
Other     Climate     Protection     Partnerships     2008     Annual     Report.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/annualreports/annual_report_2008.pdf

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

      •   Percentage  of registered  facilities  that  submit  required  and complete
          GHG data by the annual reporting deadline of March 31.
Performance Databases:

e-GGRT, EPA's electronic  Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool collects and stores entity
level  registration  and GHG data submitted  by reporters under the GHG Reporting
Program (Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Rule).

For Subparts LL  and MM, the  OTAQ registration database, OTAQReg, collects and
manages  entity level  GHG  registration data.   Additionally, OTAQ's fuels compliance
database, DCFUELS,  will store  GHG data submitted via the Agency's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) by reporters under the GHG Reporting Program (Mandatory Reporting
of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Rule).  OTAQ will provide GAP with LL & MM data for
incorporation into e-GGRT.

Data Sources:

Individual facilities and suppliers covered under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Rule.

-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:

Data excluding subparts  LL & MM are submitted directly by facilities  and suppliers
(reporters) using either web forms or XML bulk file upload options via the electronic
greenhouse gas reporting tool.  Registration is completed in advance of data submission
using e-GGRT. Registration and annual GHG report submission is done in a CROMERR
compliant manner. Subpart LL & MM data are submitted directly by suppliers using the
OTAQ's registration  and reporting system.   All  data is  collected and  submitted by
reporters following methodologies and procedures specified in the Mandatory Reporting
of Greenhouse Gases Rule.    EPA assumes that "registered facilities" in the measure
includes both  facilities and suppliers subject to the reporting rule.  EPA assumes that
"registered" includes  only those reporters that have submitted complete certificates of
representation  per 40 CFR Part 98.4.  EPA  assumes that  reporters may resubmit their
annual GHG reports throughout the year. EPA assumes that not all reporters that register
in e-GGRT and/or  OTAQReg are  required to report under  the program.   This may
include facilities using e-GGRT to comply with State-level  GHG reporting  programs and
facilities that register erroneously.

QA/QC Procedures:

To determine the correct denominator (number of  registered facilities) for the measure
EPA will discount those reporters that are not required to report.  In order to do this EPA
will, for each reporting year, review estimated applicability determination lists for each
subpart, review lists of facilities registering for state-only reporting, look at data that is
below applicable thresholds that was entered into e-GGRT by registered facilities but not
submitted, and look at data that was entered and submitted into e-GGRT by registered
facilities but rejected by e-GGRT because it is below the emissions reporting threshold
for  required reporting.   To   determine  the  correct numerator (number  of facilities
submitting  required data) both e-GGRT and DCFUELS  will include a  completeness
check for every annual GHG report that is signed  and submitted to EPA.  A complete
report  is defined  as one that  includes all applicable subparts  for a given  facility or
supplier and, within each subpart all necessary data elements for applicable methods.

Data Quality Review:
Same as QA procedures.

Data Limitations:
None known

Error  Estimate:  At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate as this  is a
new reporting program and e-GGRT is a new data collection tool.

New/Improved Data or Systems:

e-GGRT:     Effective on  December  29,  2009, EPA's Mandatory  Reporting  of
Greenhouse Gases requires annual  GHG reports from certain  facilities and suppliers

-------
beginning in reporting year 2010.  All reporting under the rule is required to be electronic
only.  EPA's electronic greenhouse gas reporting tool  (e-GGRT) is being developed to
help reporters fulfill their reporting requirements under the rule with the exception of
subpart LL and MM reporters.

OTAQs existing registration and reporting systems have been modified to accommodate
LL and MM GHGRP data.  OTAQ will transfer this data to OAP for incorporation into e-
GGRT.

References: For additional information about the greenhouse gas reporting program, see:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.         For    more
information   on   electronic   greenhouse  gas   reporting  tool   (e-GGRT),   see:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/data-reporting-system.html.

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Adapt to Climate Change

•  Cumulative number of major scientific models and decision support tools used
   in implementing environmental management programs that integrate climate
   change science data
•  Cumulative number of proposed  major rulemakings with climate sensitive,
   environmental impacts, and within existing authorities, that integrate climate
   change science data
•  Cumulative number of dollars from major grants, loans, contracts, or technical
   assistance agreements spent on climate sensitive projects that have an
   environmental outcome

Performance Database: Tracked in a spreadsheet and maintained by the Office of
Policy (OP)

Data Source: Data will be submitted to the Office of Policy (OP) from environmental
and research program offices across the Agency

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  The "scientific models/decisions support
tools" measure is calculated by assigning a numeric value of one (1) to any major
scientific model or decision support tool. The "proposed rule making" measure is
calculated by assigning a numeric value of one (1) to any major  rule proposed. The
"dollars from grants, loans, contracts, and technical assistance agreements" measure is
calculated by tallying the total dollar value of funds dedicated to climate change sensitive
projects that have an environmental outcome.

EPA is defining a "major" rule based upon guidelines published by the Office of
Management and Budget. Specifically, a major rule is one that has an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. Also, the term "rule" refers to a proposed rule.

Consistent with this approach, EPA is defining a major scientific model and/or decision
support tool as one that may influence a major agency rule or action. For example, the

-------
BASINS CAT model is a decision support tool that enhances the ability of U.S. cities and
communities with combined sewer systems to meet the requirements of EPA's Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy [1]. In 1996, EPA estimated the cost of CSO
control, consistent with the CSO Control Policy, to be $44.7 billion (1996 dollars). For
this reason, the BASIN CAT model is an appropriate decision support tool to include.

EPA will measure the amount of grants, loans, contracts, or technical assistance
agreements (>$1 million per project or $5> million per program). The term project is
defined as an individual funding agreement and a program is defined as multiple projects.
For example, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is a program that includes
funding for grants. This EPA-led interagency initiative targets the most significant
problems in the region, including invasive aquatic species, non-point source pollution,
and contaminated sediment. It has outcome-oriented performance goals and measures,
many of which are climate-sensitive.  To ensure the overall success of the initiative, it is
imperative that consideration of climate change and climate adaptation be integrated into
GLRI grants and projects. Aside from GLRI, other climate-sensitive programs across the
Agency include those for land revitalization and cleanup,  air quality monitoring and
protection, wetlands and water protection and restoration to name a few. Greenhouse gas
mitigation programs and projects would not be included in this total.

QA/QC Procedures: The Office of Policy will ensure that all deliverables:
   (1) meet the qualification criteria listed above under "Methods,  Assumptions, and
       Suitability" and
   (2) satisfy EPA peer review guidelines to ensure their scientific quality and
       credibility

Data Quality Review: No additional data quality review  is necessary

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: New data collection

References:
1.  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Combined Sewer
   Overflow Demographics, 2010:
   http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/demo.cfm?program_id=5
2.  National Research Council of the National Academies, "America's Climate Choices"
   report, 2010: http://americasclimatechoices.org/paneladaptation.shtml
3.  U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Adaptation Options":
   http://www.globalchange.gov/component/content/article/67-themes/153-our-
   changing-planet
4.  Council on Environmental Quality, "Climate Change Adaptation Task Force":
   http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/adaptation

-------
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze

•   Maintain annual emissions of  SOi  from  electric  power generation sources
    nationwide at or below 6 million tons

Performance Databases:

Emissions Tracking System (ETS) -  SC>2 and NOX emissions
•   Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)  - dry deposition
•   National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) - wet deposition
•   Temporally Integrated  Monitoring of Ecosystems  program (TIME)  - surface  water
    chemistry
•   Long-Term Monitoring Network program (LTM) -  surface water chemistry

Data Sources: On a quarterly basis, ETS receives and processes hourly measurements of
SO2, NOX, volumetric flow, CO2, and other emission-related parameters  from more than
3,400 fossil fuel-fired utility units affected under the Title IV Acid Rain  Program. These
measurements are  collected  by certified continuous  emission monitoring systems
(CEMS) or equivalent continuous monitoring methods.

CASTNET  measures  particle  and gas  acidic  deposition  chemistry.   Specifically,
CASTNET measures sulfate and nitrate dry deposition and meteorological information at
approximately 88 monitoring sites, primarily in the East. 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 2007 Annual Quality
Assurance           Report           may          be          found           at
http://www.epa.gov/castnet/docs/annual_report_2007.pdf

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, etal (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/business/report-emissions.html  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.
References:         For    additional    information    about    CASTNET,     see
http://www.epa.gov/castnet and for NADP, see http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.

For a  description of EPA's Acid Rain program, see
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/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 2012Performance Measures: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze

       •  Cumulative   percent  reduction   in   population-weighted   ambient
          concentration  of  fine  particulate matter  (PM  2.5)  in  all  monitored
          counties from 2003 baseline
       •  Cumulative   percent  reduction   in   population-weighted   ambient
          concentration of ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline

-------
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 2012 Performance Measure:

   •  Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process SIP revisions
      weighted by complexity  Efficiency

-------
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 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze

      •  Cumulative  percent reduction in the average number of days during the
          ozone  season that the  ozone standard  is  exceeded in  baseline non-
          attainment areas, weighted by population.
      •  Cumulative  percent reduction  in the number  of days with Air Quality
          Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and  AQI
          value.
      •  Cumulative  percent reduction  in the number  of days with Air Quality
          Index (AQI) values over  100 since 2003, per grant dollar allocated to the
          States in  support of the NAAQS program. Efficiency

-------
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).  Program dollars are based on
the grant dollars allocated to the States in support of the NAAQS program, which will be
retrieved from the EPA Financial Data Warehouse.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:

Data are gathered from monitors using EPA-approved federal reference and/or equivalent
methods, all of  which are published via the Federal Register.    EPA assumes the
collecting agency has properly maintained each monitor and that  the data sent to EPA
have passed at least an automated QA/QC check.  The monitoring networks have been
providing data for decades and the data are considered highly reliable.   In addition these
data  form the basis of EPA's  attainment decisions, trend analysis, and  health impact
assessments.

QA/QC Procedures:

AQS: The QA/QC of the national air monitoring program has several major components:
the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process,  reference  and equivalent methods program,
EPA's National  Performance  Audit Program  (NPAP),  system  audits, and  network
reviews (Available  on  the Internet:  www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npaplist.html). To ensure
quality data, the SLAMS  are required  to meet the following:  1) each site must meet
network  design and site criteria; 2) each site must provide adequate QA assessment,
control, and corrective action functions according to minimum program requirements; 3)
all  sampling  methods  and  equipment  must  meet EPA  reference  or equivalent
requirements; 4)  acceptable  data validation and record keeping procedures must be
followed; and 5)  data from SLAMS must be summarized and reported annually to EPA.
Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data collection
activity for any needed changes or corrections.  Further information available on the
Internet:    http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html  and  through  United
States EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004  Section 15)

DMC: 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.
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 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze

       •  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.

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 to ensure better
consistency between states and to specifically track program assessment measures.

References:  For additional  information about criteria pollutant  data,  non-attainment
areas, and other related information, see:  http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/.

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze
       •  Percent of  major NSR permits issued  within  one year  of receiving a
          complete permit application.

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)
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 2012 Performance Measures:  Reduce Criteria Pollutants and Regional Haze

•   Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced  since 2000 from
    mobile sources.
•   Millions of tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
•   Tons of particular matter (PM 10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
•   Tons of particular matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources
•   Limit the increase of CO Emissions (in tons) from mobile sources Not in 4-year
    table
•   Tons of pollutants  (VOC, NOx, PM, CO) reduced per total emission  reduction
    dollars spent (both EPA and private industry) Long-term efficiency
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 mobile  sources are
MOBILE6     and   Nonroad   2002.       (Available   on   the   Internet    at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.) The inputs to these and other models will be
reviewed and updated,  sometimes on an annual basis for some parameters.  Unless the
model inputs are updated and recalculations done for the performance measures to obtain
updated numbers,  the actual numbers will be the same as the projected numbers.

Major 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.

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 2012 Performance Measures:Reduce Air Toxics

•  Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk)
   emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline
•  Cumulative percentage reduction  in tons  of toxicity-weighted (for noncancer
   risk) emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline

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 2002 NEI and a slightly modified/updated 2005 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and
mobile  source estimates.  These  inventories  also contain estimates of facility-specific
HAP  emissions and their source specific parameters such  as location (latitude and
longitude) and facility characteristics (stack height, exit velocity, temperature, etc.

The primary source  of  data in the 1996 and 1999 inventories are state and local  air
pollution control  agencies and  Tribes.  These data vary in  completeness, format, and
quality.  EPA  evaluates these  data  and supplements  them with  data gathered while
developing MACT and residual risk standards, industry data, and TRI data.

For more information and references on the development of the 1996 NTI, please  go to
the following web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nti/index.html#nti. For more information
and references on the development of the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please go to the following
web site: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.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 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html)
to get the noncancer tons.  These toxicity-weighted values act as a surrogate for risk and
allow EPA  to compare the  toxicity-weighted values against a 1990/1993 baseline of
toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk on an annual basis

Complete documentation  on development of the NEI for HAPs can be  found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html.   For more information and  references  on
EMS-HAP,  go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htm#aspen
and  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html.     The  growth   and
reduction    information   used   for  the  projections   are  further   described  at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/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 incorporated an automated AAQA  content
tool  into its  data submission  process.   Information  on emission inventory reporting
(including a QA check) can be  found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/neip/index.html

The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and
identifies the augmentation  method.  After  performing the content  analysis, the EPA
contacts data  providers to reconcile potential errors.  The draft NTI is posted for external
review and includes a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission
of revisions, state-by-state modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files
to assist in the review of the data.  One of the summary files includes a comparison of
point source data  submitted by different organizations.  During the external review of the
data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and industry provide external QA of the inventory.
The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from external reviewers and prepares memos for
individual reviewers documenting incorporation of revisions and explanations if revisions
were  not incorporated.  All revisions are tracked in the  database with the  source  of
original data and sources of subsequent revision.

The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes
in the initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs
and its final version.  For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer
to the following  web  site  for a  paper  presented  at the  2002 Emission  Inventory
Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC -  An Integral Step  in the Development of the 1999
National    Emission    Inventory    for    HAPs",    Anne    Pope,    et    al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf

EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF)
fields. These  standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and
other Federal agencies.  The  use of common data standards  among partners fosters
consistently defined and formatted data elements  and sets of data values, and provides
public access to more meaningful data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are
the:  SIC/NAICS,  Latitude/Longitude, Chemical  Identification, Facility  Identification,

-------
Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards.  The 1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all
new data standards except the Facility Identification Standard because OEI has not
completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for HAPs facilities.

For more information on compliance of the NEI for HAPs with new OMB Information
Quality Guidelines and new EPA data standards, please refer to the following web site
for a paper presented at the  2003 Emission Inventory Conference in San Diego.  "The
Challenge of Meeting New EPA Data  Standards and Information Quality Guidelines in
the Development of the 2002 NEI Point Source Data for HAPs", Anne Pope, et al.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eil2/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/risk/guidance.htm.

Data Quality Review:  EPA  staff, state and local agencies, Tribes, industry and the
public review the NTI and the NEI for HAPs.  To assist in the review of the 1999 NEI for
HAPs,  the  EPA  provided  a comparison  of  data from  the  three  data sources
(MACT/residual risk data,  TRI, and state, local and Tribal  inventories) for each facility.
For the 1999 NEI for HAPs, two periods were available for  external review  - October
2001 -  February  2002 and October 2002 - March 2003.   The final 1999  NEI was
completed and posted on the Agency website in the fall of 2003.  Beginning in  2005, the
NTI will undergo an external scientific peer review.

The  EMS-HAP has been subjected to  the scrutiny  of leading scientists throughout the
country in a process called "scientific peer review".  This ensures that EPA uses the best
available scientific methods and information.  In 2001, EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB) reviewed the EMS-HAP model as part of the  1996 national-scale assessment. The
review was generally supportive  of the assessment  purpose, methods, and presentation;
the committee  considers this an important step  toward a better understanding  of  air
toxics.        Additional    information    is    available     on   the    Internet:
www. epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/peer. html.

The  data compiled in  the Health  Criteria Data for Risk Characterization  (found at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html) are reviewed to make sure they support
hazard identification and dose-response assessment for chronic exposures as defined in
the   National   Academy   of   Sciences    (NAS)   risk   assessment    paradigm
(www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/paradigm.html).  Because the health criteria data were
obtained from various sources they are prioritized for use (in developing the performance

-------
measure, for example) according to 1) conceptual consistency with EPA risk assessment
guidelines and 2) various levels  of scientific peer review.  The prioritization process is
aimed at incorporating the best available scientific data.

Data Limitations and Error Estimates:  While emissions estimating techniques have
improved over the years, broad assumptions about the behavior of sources and serious
data limitations  still exist.   The NTI and the NEI for HAPs contain data from  other
primary references.  Because of the different data sources, not all information in the NTI
and the NEI for HAPs has been developed using identical methods.  Also, for the same
reason, there are likely some geographic areas with more detail and accuracy than others.
Because of the lesser level of detail in the baseline NTI,  it is currently not suitable for
input to dispersion models.  For further discussion of 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.

-------
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

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://www.epa.gov/scram001/userg/other/emshapv3ug.pdf
                          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

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants

          •    Expressed as a percentage, the cumulative number of existing homes
              with  an operating mitigation system (HOMS)) compared  to  the
              estimated number of homes at or above EPA's 4pCi/L*  action level
          •    Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually
              through lowered radon exposure [Long-term performance measure]
          •    Total cost (public  and private) per  future premature lung cancer
              death  prevented  through  lowered  radon exposure  [Long-term
              efficiency measure]

Performance Database: Data are stored in an internal spreadsheet

Data Source: EPA compares the number of existing homes that have been mitigated to
all homes anywhere in  the country  requiring mitigation because they exceed the EPA
action level of 4pCi/L.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:

-------
EPA  annually  calculates  the  estimated  number  of existing homes mitigated for an
elevated  radon level based on radon mitigation vent fan sales  data obtained through
voluntary reporting by the fan  manufacturers. Radon mitigation fans have an estimated
life of ten years.  When estimating the number of new radon mitigations annually, the
data from fan manufacturers is adjusted based on an assumption that previously-installed
radon mitigation systems will  require a fan replacement every ten years.  Historically,
about 60% of the new homes built with radon-reducing features in the U.S. are built in
Zone  1 areas, the highest risk areas (classified as Zone 1 by EPA).

The calculation of the number of homes across the country at or above EPA's 4pCi/L
action level is based on methodology in the 1992  technical  support document for radon
(internal document available upon request) and current census data.

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.

QA/QC  Procedures: EPA relies on the radon fan manufacturers  annual  reporting on
sales data for radon venting (vent) fans that are used for mitigation.
Data Quality Review: Data are obtained from an external organization.  EPA reviews
the data to ascertain their reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant
manufacturer.

Data Limitations: Reporting  by  radon fan  manufacturers is voluntary  and may
underestimate the number of radon fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available
data to determine the number of homes mitigated.  There are other methods to mitigate
radon including: passive mitigation techniques of sealing holes and cracks in floors and
foundation walls, installing sealed covers over sump pits, installing one-way drain valves
in untrapped  drains, and installing static venting and ground covers in  areas like crawl
spaces.  Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods, there is again the
possibility that the number of radon mitigated homes has been underestimated.

No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report
to EPA; they  provide data/information voluntarily to EPA.  There are only four (4) radon
vent fan manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70%
of the market. Radon  vent fans are  unlikely to be used for non-radon applications.
However,  vent fans typically used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed
as substitutes for radon vent fans in some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the
total  market.   Ascertaining the actual  number of radon  vent fans  used  for other
applications,  and the number of non-radon fans being substituted in radon applications,
would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the benefit of having such data.

-------
Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  None

References: See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html (last accessed 8/23/10)
for National performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985 to 2003*) on
radon, measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant new construction.  Data through 2004
are available from the Indoor Environments Division of the Office of Air and Radiation.

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
   •   Total number of all new single family homes (SFH) built in high radon
       potential areas (zone 1) compared to new homes in zone 1 built with
       mitigation-ready systems (radon-reducing features)

Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the
National Association of Home Builders.

Data Source: The survey is an annual sample of home builders in the United States most
of whom are members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). NAHB
members construct 80% of the homes built in the United States each year. Using a survey
methodology reviewed by EPA, NAHB Research Center estimates the percentage of
these homes that are built radon resistant.  The percentage built radon resistant from the
sample is then used to estimate what percent of all homes built nationwide are radon
resistant. To calculate the number of people living in radon resistant homes, EPA
assumes an average of 2.67 people per household. NAHB  Research Center has been
conducting this annual builder practices survey for over a decade, and has developed
substantial expertise in the survey's design, implementation, and analysis. The statistical
estimates are typically reported with a 95 percent confidence interval.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: NAHB Research Center conducts an annual
survey of home builders in the United States to assess a wide range of builder practices.
NAHB Research Center voluntarily conducts this survey to maintain an awareness of
industry trends in order to improve American housing and to be responsive to the needs
of the home building industry. The annual survey gathers information such as types of
houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and
windows used, etc. The NAHB Research Center Builder Survey also gathers information
on the use  of radon-resistant design features in new houses, and these questions comprise
about two percent of the survey questionnaire.

In January of each year, the survey of building practices for the preceding calendar year
is typically mailed out to home builders.  For the most-recently completed survey, NAHB
Research Center reported mailing the survey to about 45,000 active United States  home
building companies, and received about 2,300 responses, which translates to a response
rate of about 5 percent. The survey responses are analyzed, with respect to State market

-------
areas and Census Divisions in the United States, to assess the percentage and number of
homes built each year that incorporate radon-reducing features. The data are also used to
assess the percentage and number of homes built with radon-reducing features in high
radon potential areas in the United States (high risk areas).  Other analyses include radon-
reducing features as a function of housing type, foundation type, and different techniques
for radon-resistant new home construction.  The data are suitable for year-to-year
comparisons.

QA/QC Procedures: Because data are obtained from an external organization, QA/QC
procedures are not entirely known. According to NAHB Research Center, QA/QC
procedures have been established, which includes QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized
for key entry of data.

Data Quality Review:  Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data
Quality Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates
that each survey is manually reviewed, a process that  requires several months to
complete.  The review includes data quality checks to ensure that the respondents
understood the survey questions and answered the questions appropriately. NAHB
Research Center also applies checks for open-ended questions to verify the
appropriateness of the answers. In some cases, where open-ended questions request
numerical information,  the data are  capped between the upper and lower three percent of
the values provided in the survey responses.  Also, a quality review of each year's draft
report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer.

Data Limitations:  The majority of home builders surveyed are NAHB members. The
NAHB Research Center survey also attempts to capture the activities of builders that are
not members of NAHB. Home builders that are not members of NAHB are typically
smaller, sporadic builders that in some cases build homes as a secondary profession.  To
augment the list of NAHB members in the survey sample, NAHB Research Center sends
the survey to home builders identified from mailing lists of builder trade publications,
such as Professional Builder magazine. There is some uncertainty as to whether the
survey adequately characterizes the practices of builders who are not members of NAHB.
The effects on the findings are not known.

Although an overall response rate of 5 percent could be considered low, it is the response
rate for the entire survey, of which the radon-resistant new construction questions are
only a very small portion. Builders responding to the survey would not be doing so
principally  due to their radon activities.  Thus, a low response rate does not necessarily
indicate a strong potential for a positive bias under the speculation that builders using
radon-resistant construction would be more likely to respond to the survey. NAHB
Research Center also makes efforts to reduce the potential for positive bias in the way the
radon-related survey questions are presented.

Error Estimate: See Data Limitations

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

-------
References: The results are published by the NAHB Research Center in annual reports
of radon-resistant home building practices. See http://www.nahbrc.org/ last accessed
12/15/2009 for more information about NAHB. The most recent report, "Builder
Practices Report: Radon Reducing Features in New Construction 2003,"Annual Builder
and Consumer Practices Surveys by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., November, 2004.
Similar report titles exist for prior years.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants


    •   Additional health care  professionals trained  annually by  EPA  and  its
       partners on the environmental management of asthma triggers

Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status
reports used to document the outcomes of individual projects as well as EPA staff reports
of healthcare professionals directly educated by EPA.

Data  Source: Partner status reports are  generated by those  organizations receiving
funding from EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers. For those
healthcare professionals directly trained by EPA, results are stored in project files.

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: The Indoors Environments Division has  developed a
centralized tracking system, known  as IAQ Impact, to capture results from headquarters
and regional actions, as well as from grantees.

References: N/A

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
       Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's media campaign

-------
Performance Database: In partnership with the Advertising Council, EPA conducts a
national public awareness campaign designed to raise awareness and promote action on
asthma  trigger  management.    Data on  this campaign, including  target  audience
impressions, demographics, campaign recall, attitudes and behaviors are collected by the
Ad Council through continuous tracking and point in time surveys.

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/

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
   •   Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
       environmental asthma triggers [Long-term performance 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.
(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
ofETS.

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 2012 Performance Measures: Reduce Exposure to Indoor Pollutants
       Estimated  annual  number of  schools  establishing  Indoor  Air  Quality
       programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance
       Total number of schools implementing an effective Indoor Air Quality plan
       [Long-term performance measure]
Performance Database:  To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the number of
schools which 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:  Partner  status reports are generated  by  those  organizations receiving
funding from EPA and  are maintained by individual EPA Project  Officers. For those
organizations directly trained by EPA, results are stored in project files.

Methods, Assumptions  and Suitability: To measure annual progress, EPA estimates the
number of schools which establish  IAQ Tools for Schools programs  each year  from
reports from partner organizations and regional recruiters, supplemented by tracking the
volume of guidance distributed, and number of people trained by EPA and its partners.

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: The Indoor Environments Division has developed a
centralized tracking system, known as IAQ Impact, to capture results from headquarters
and regional actions, as well as from partners.

References:  See the  Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit (EPA 402-K-07-008)

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

    •   Total federal dollars spent per school joining the SunWise program [Long-
       term efficiency measure]

Performance Database: Not applicable

Data Source: Federal dollars spent is estimated from annual program budget tracking
documents. The number of schools joining the SunWise program is measured by
counting the number of schools that register to join the SunWise program in each year,
which is collected at http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html.  Schools also have the
option of sending in a paper registration, which EPA then enters at this website.  EPA
tracks the data at an internal website
http ://intranet. epa. gov/sunwi se/track/trac_teacher. html.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of schools joining the
SunWise program is measured by counting the number of schools that register to join the
SunWise program in each year,  which is collected at
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html, and adding the incremental number of
schools joining the program to the prior year's cumulative total.  The efficiency measure
is calculated by dividing the cumulative number of dollars EPA has spent on the SunWise
program by the cumulative number of schools that have joined the program.

QA/QC Procedures:  All registrations by schools  are  reviewed by EPA staff for
completeness and to assure there is no double counting of entries.  EPA updates the
registration information during the course of program implementation.

Data Quality Reviews: Each year researchers at an independent contractor contact a
statistical sample of schools in the program database in order to evaluate the effectiveness
of the program.  EPA updates the website based on the contractor's findings as
appropriate.

-------
Data Limitations:  The number of participating schools is probably underestimated since
schools that fail to provide full registration information are not entered into the database,
even if they participate in the program. Note that additional organizations besides
schools may also register and provide the Sun Wise curriculum.  These organizations
include scout troupes, camps, and 4-H groups, for example.  Therefore, counting only
schools underestimates the program's reach and efficiency.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References:
For more information about the Sun Wise School program, see:
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/ and
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/becoming.html Data collection regarding schools that
participate in Sun Wise is authorized by OMB Control No. 2060-0439.

GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2012 Performance Measure:Reduce Consumption of ODS

    •   Remaining  US  Consumption  of  hydrochlorofluorocarbons  (HCFCs),
       chemicals that deplete the Earth's protective ozone layer, measured in tons of
       Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP)

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/ozone/title6/index.html.   Monthly   information   on   domestic
production, imports, and exports from the International Trade Commission is maintained
in the ATS.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Data are aggregated across all U.S. companies
for each individual ODS to analyze U.S. total consumption and production.

QA/QC Procedures:  Reporting and record-keeping requirements are published in 40
CFR Part  82,  Subpart A,  Sections  82.9 through 82.13.  These  sections  of  the
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Rule  specify  the required data  and  accompanying

-------
documentation that companies must  submit or maintain  on-site  to demonstrate their
compliance with the regulation.

The ATS data are subject to a Quality Assurance Plan (Quality Assurance Plan, USEPA
Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002).  In addition, the data are subject to an
annual quality assurance review, coordinated by Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff
separate  from those  on  the team  normally  responsible   for  data  collection and
maintenance.   The ATS  is programmed to ensure  consistency of the data elements
reported  by companies.  The tracking  system flags inconsistent  data for review and
resolution by the tracking system manager.  This information is then cross-checked with
compliance data submitted by reporting companies.  SPD maintains a user's manual for
the ATS that specifies the standard operating procedures for data entry and data analysis.
Regional inspectors perform inspections and audits on-site  at the producers', importers',
and exporters' facilities. These audits verify the accuracy of compliance data  submitted to
EPA through examination of company records.

Data Quality Reviews: The Government Accounting Office (GAO) completed a  review
of U.S. participation in five international environmental  agreements, and analyzed data
submissions from the U.S. under the  Montreal Protocol  on Substances the Deplete the
Ozone Layer. No deficiencies were identified in their January 2003 report.

Data Limitations:  None, since companies are required  by the Clean Air Act to report
data. EPA's regulations specify a quarterly reporting system.

Error Estimate:  None.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The Stratospheric Protection Division is developing a
system to allow direct electronic reporting.

References:  See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/desc.html  for  additional information on
ODSs. See http://www.epa.gov.ozone/intpol/index.html 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 2012 Performance Measure: Prepare for Radiological Emergencies

      •   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).

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 complement 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 program
Program Assessment (Draft: 7/25/2007)

FY 2012 Performance Measure:  Prepare for Radiological Emergencies

       •  Average time before availability of quality assured ambient radiation air
          monitoring data during an emergency.

-------
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 (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 3 dated June 1, 2009).

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 2012 Performance Measure: Prepare for Radiological Emergencies

       •  Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE
          waste generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive
          waste at WIPP (measured as percentage reduction from a 2004 baseline)

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

References:   The Department of Energy National TRU  Waste  Management Plan
Quarterly   Supplement  http://www.wipp.energy.gov/shipments.htm    (last  accessed
8/23/2010) contains information on the volumes of waste that are received at the DOE
WIPP.

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Prepare for Radiological Emergencies

       •  Population  covered by Radiation Protection  Program monitors per
          million dollars invested. Efficiency

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.  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 2 OBJECTIVE 1


FY 2012 Performance Measures: Water Safe to Drink

•  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

•  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

•  Percent  of  person months  during  which  community water  systems provide
   drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards

•  Percent  of  community  water  systems that meet all  applicable  health-based
   standards through approaches  that include effective treatment and  source water
   protection

•  The percentage of community water  systems  that have  undergone  a sanitary
   survey within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance)
Performance Database:  Safe Drinking  Water Information System - Federal Version
(SDWIS or SDWIS/FED).  SDWIS  contains basic water system  information, population
served, and   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 percent of the population served by community water systems,  or the percent
of community water  systems, that did  not report any violations designated as  "health
based."   Exceedances of a maximum  contaminant  level  (MCL) and violations  of a
treatment technique are health-based violations.

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 (a subset of
the inventory data 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.

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. Documentation is also
       available at the Association of State  Drinking Water Administrators web site at
       www.ASDWA.org.

   (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:  The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is modifying its
approach to data quality review based on the recommendations of the Data Quality
Workgroup and on the Drinking Water Strategy for monitoring data. As part of the Drinking
Strategy, EPA expects to regularly receive compliance monitoring data from states beginning
in 2013 for which it will use analytical tools to determine the completeness of reporting of
violations to SDWIS.

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
l2006Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan, EPA-816-R-07-010 March 2008

-------
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 percent of
people affected  by health-based violations, 2) target enforcement oversight, 3) target
program assistance to primacy agencies, and 4) provide information to the public on the
safety of their drinking water facilities.   States may also choose to use electronic Data
Verification (eDV) tool to help improve data quality.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  Several approaches are underway.

First, EPA will continue to work with states to implement the DRAP,  which has 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)  targeted  data audits
conducted each year to better understand challenges with specific rules and 4) assistance
to regions and states in the identification and reconciliation of missing,  incomplete, or
conflicting data.

Second, more states  (as of January 2011,  55  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, in 2006 EPA 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.
Data are stored in a data warehouse system that is optimized for analysis, data retrieval,
and data integration from other data sources.  It has improved the program's ability to
more efficiently use information to support decision-making and effectively manage the
program.

EPA has also begun a multi-year effort to develop the next generation information system
to replace SDWIS/State.  In  addition to reducing the total cost of ownership to EPA, a
high priority goal of this effort is to support  improved data quality through the evaluation
of all public water system monitoring data.

Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states,  developed and is in the process of deploying
a data system to manage information for the Underground Injection  Control Program
2 SDWIS/STATE is an optional 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

-------
(UIC). This database will provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess
the nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal.   The UIC database
began receiving data in 2007.

References:
Plans

    •   SDWIS/FED does not have a Quality Assurance Project Plan.  The SDWIS/FED
       equivalent is the Data Reliability Action Plan
    •   Office of Water Quality Management Plan, available at
       http://www.epa.gov/water/info.html
Reports

   •   2006 Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan, EPA-816-R-07-
       010 March 2008

Guidance Manuals, and Tools

   D  PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
   D  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
   D  Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet
   at  http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html

Web site addresses

   D  OGWDW Internet Site http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html and contains
       access  to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and
       reports.
   D  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 2012 Performance Measure:
       •  Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF

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 DWNIMS directly represent
the units of performance for the performance measure. These data are suitable for year-
to-year comparison and trend indication.

QA/QC  Procedures:  EPA's  headquarters  and Regional  offices are  responsible  for
compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance
with expected trends. States receive data entry  guidance from EPA headquarters in  the
form of annual memoranda (e.g., "2005 DWNIMS Data Collection.")

Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and Regional offices annually review the
data submitted by the states. State data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/dwnims.html in individual state reports.
Headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through
the appropriate EPA Regional office. Additionally, EPA's contractor tests the data for
logical consistency. An annual EPA headquarters' "DWNIMS Analysis" provides
detailed data categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during:

1.  Annual EPA Regional office and state reviews to identify potential problems with  the
program's pace which might affect the performance measure.
2.  Reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds.
3.  Annual reviews by EPA's Regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.

State data quality is also evaluated during annual reviews performed by EPA Regions.
Any inconsistencies that are found in need of correction are incorporated into future
DWNIMS reports. These adjustments  are historically rare and very minor.

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 NEVIS 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 DWNEVIS Data Collection - memo from Jeff Bryan, 7/12/05
DWNEVIS analysis

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Water Safe to Drink

    •   Number of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells (MVWDW) and large
       capacity cesspools (LCC) that are closed or permitted (cumulative).
    •   Percent of Classes I, II and Class III salt solution  mining wells that have lost
       mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby
       reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.

Performance  Database:   The Underground  Injection  Control  (UIC) program is
authorized under Part C Sections 1421,  1422,  1423, 1425, 1431  and  1445 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SOWA). Regulations for the UIC program are in 40 CFR Parts 144
- 148.  Basic program information is collected from states and EPA's regional offices
(regions) with  direct implementation (DI)  responsibilities through the  7520 Federal
Reporting forms 1, 2A,  2B, 3  and 4.  In July  2005, EPA  issued a measures reporting
assistance memorandum, "Information  to  Assist Regions and  States to Report  on
Underground  Injection  Control   Program's  National  Water  Program   Guidance
Performance Activity Measures," which is updated as measures are modified or changed.
Starting in FY 2005, including  annual updates thereafter, states report to EPA the results
of their UIC performance measures. The measures have evolved over time. In the initial
2005 reporting, primacy program directors  (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  Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal  Wells that were closed or
permitted.   The measures  were modified  in  FY 2008.   Primacy program  directors
reported  on the closure of permitting of high priority wells, as defined by the primacy
program, in sensitive  ground water areas.  For Class I, II, and Class III salt solutions
wells, primacy program directors reported on the percentage  of wells that lost mechanical
integrity  and were returned to compliance within 180  days.   In  FY  2012,  primacy
program  directors will continue to report on mechanical integrity and will limit Class V
reporting to only those high priority wells that are regulated under the 1999 Class V i.e
Motor  Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells and Large Capacity Cesspools.  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 began collecting program information in a UIC national database in 2007;
this system electronically transfers information from state databases to EPA's national
database using EPA's Exchange Network. EPA is currently working with the regions and
states to populate.

Data Source: Until the UIC national database is populated, states or DI programs will
report to EPA using the UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures System. This is a
web-base data entry system. States and DI programs began transition to the UIC national
data system for reporting of UIC data in 2007.  It is anticipated that  all states will  be
participating  in the UIC database in FY 2013 and that the web based system will  be
phased out.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  For these measures,  the states'  reporting of
progress is based on EPA's guidance, "Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
Measures  in  the National Water Program Guidance  for 2008, 2009, 2010 and  2011."
Revised guidance will be issued for FY 2012. State reporting will be based on  definitions
and procedures fond in the guidance.  Most States only  report  state-level summary
information, much of which is contained in state databases.   EPA believes that the data
will be reliable for use in making management  decisions but will be greatly improved as
more programs are reporting well specified information through the UIC database.

QA/QC Procedures:  QA/QC procedures include validation of information in states'
7520  reporting forms and data submitted to the National UIC  database. Additionally, a
series of data checks are  built into the web  entry  system and the database.   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 to improve over time.

Data Limitations:  Current reporting through  the  web based  system 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. There is
standard protocol to  verify  and validate well specific date reported to the UIC National
database.  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:  A centralized data system for information required
under the Class VI Rule for Carbon Dioxide Class Geosequestration is being developed.
There are no performance  measures at this time although EPA will be evaluating rule
implementation.
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
   •   Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Measures in the National Water
       Program Guidance for 2009 and 2010.

   •   Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148

   •   UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures Web Data Entry System

   •   7520 Federal Reporting Forms (OGWDW Homepage-UIC Program)
       Form 7520-1 Permit Review and Issuance/Wells in Area of Review
       Form 7520-2A (Compliance Evaluation)
       Form 7520- 2B (Compliance Evaluation/ Significant Noncompliance)
       Form 7520-3(Inspections/Mechanical Integrity Testing)
       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/sdwa/sdwa.html

FY 2012 Performance Measure:  Fish and Shell-fish safe to eat

•  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 periodically by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC).  The Third National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals, which presented findings for the years 2001 and  2002, 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 The most recent report, the
Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, was published
in July 2009. This report presents exposure data for the U.S. population over the two-year

-------
survey period of 2003-2004. The Fourth Report also includes data from 1999-2000 and
2001-2002, as reported in the Second and Third National Reports on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals. In the Fourth Report, CDC presents data on 212 chemicals,
including results for 75 chemicals measured for the first time in the U.S. population.
The Updated Tables (published in July 2010) provide nationally-representative
biomonitoring data from the 2005-2006 survey cycle of the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) for 51 of the environmental chemicals measured in the
Fourth Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (released in December
2009), covering NHANES 1999-2004. The Updated Tables are cumulative, containing all
the results from previous survey cycles (1999-2006). EPA is in the process of
normalizing and analyzing the data from the Fourth Report.

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.

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) has a policy for release of and access to
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 and
Fourth National Reports 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 offish 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 periodic reports from NHANES
provide 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 and Fourth National Reports on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals.  However, the Data Sources and Data Analysis chapters in the
reports 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 and Fourth National Reports 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: In the Third National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals, weighted percentile estimates for 1999-2000 and 2001-2002
data were calculated using SAS Proc Univariate and a proportions estimation procedure.
A percentile estimate may fall on a value that is repeated multiple  times in a particular
demographic group defined by age, sex and race (e.g., in non-Hispanic white males 12-19
years old,  five results that all have a value of 90.1). Since  the Third Report, we have
improved the procedure for estimating percentiles to better handle this situation. This
improved procedure makes each repeated value unique by adding a unique negligibly
small number to each repeated value. All data from 1999-2004 have been  reanalyzed
using this  new procedure to handle situations where the percentile falls on a repeating
value. Therefore, occasional percentile estimates may differ slightly  in the current Fourth
Report compared to the Third Report. Appendix A gives the details of the new procedure
for estimating percentiles.

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/.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Fourth National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals." December 2009. Available  at
http ://www. cdc.gov/exposurereport/.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Water Safe for Swimming

•   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
collaboratively maintained a 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 (added in
1978). 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's online database, the National Outbreak Reporting  System (NORS),
launched in 2009. 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. 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 affected 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 through an online database.
Procedures for reporting outbreaks on the Internet for web-entry electronic submission

-------
are found on CDC's website1. 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
        97
measure. "  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. No
waterborne disease outbreaks associated with marine waters were reported to WBDOSS
before 2005—2006; however, evidence from multiple sources demonstrates that
contamination of marine waters is common and that swimmers in marine waters are at
increased risk for acquiring gastrointestinal illness. The reasons for a lack of reported
marine-associated outbreaks might  include the wide geographic spread of beachgoers, the
fact that some of the  marine-associated illnesses are not enteric illnesses typically linked
to waterborne causes, and a lack of illness attribution to marine waters.

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.  The National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) is a web-based
platform designed to support reporting of waterborne, foodborne, enteric person-to-
person, and animal contact-associated disease outbreaks to CDC by state and territorial
public health agencies. NORS launched in 2009 following a four year commitment by
CDC to the planning, development, and launch phases of the project. CDC developed
NORS for waterborne disease outbreak reporting in collaboration with the Council for
State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to improve the quality, quantity, and availability of data submitted to the
Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Reporting System (WBDOSS).

The launch of NORS represents an important shift in national waterborne disease
outbreak reporting—a transition from paper-based reporting to electronic reporting of
outbreak data. NORS will improve the ability to describe and prevent waterborne disease
outbreaks at national and state levels through the collection of detailed information about
deficiencies and risk factors associated with water exposure. These data, along with
historical outbreak report data transferred into NORS, will be more readily available for
review and analysis to state health officials. This should enable waterborne disease
outbreak investigators, researchers, and health policy makers to evaluate and implement
effective measures designed to prevent illness and reduce the burden of waterborne
disease in the United States. 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. http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/wbdoss/nors/forms.html and
      http:/www.cdc.gov/healthywater/wbdoss/nors/training.html
   2. Yoder JS et al. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and  Outbreaks Associated
      with Recreational Water Use and Other Aquatic Facility-Associated Health
      Events - United States, 2005—2006. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries,
       September 12, 2008. MMWR2008; 57(SS09); 1-29.
   3. 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
   4. 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.

-------
   5.  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. MMWR 2000; 49 (No. SS-4):l-34.
   6.  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.
   7.  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 2012 Performance Measure: Water Safe for Swimming

•  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
•  Percent of days of the beach season that Great Lakes beaches monitored by the
   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 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., 2009 calendar year data are used to report against
FY 2010 commitments). For the 2009 swimming season, states and territories monitored
for pathogens at 3,819 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. In re-evaluating their beach
programs,  some states combined small beaches into larger beaches during 2007, reducing
the total number of beaches monitored (from 3,771 in 2006 to 3,602 in 2007), 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 Lakes state and county environmental and public health
beach program officials in hard copy by mail.  The form is also available on the Internet
for web-entry electronic submission. When a  state or local official enters data using the
web-entry format, a password is issued  to ensure the appropriate party is completing the
survey. Currently the Agency has procedures for information collection (see Office of
Water's "Quality Management Plan," approved September 2001 and published July
20023). In addition, coastal and Great Lakes states receiving BEACH Act grants are
subject to the Agency's grant regulations under 40 CFR 31.45. These regulations require
states and tribes to develop and implement quality assurance practices for the collection
of environmental information.

Data Quality Review:  EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is
complete, following up with the state or local government to obtain additional
information where needed.  The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by
states and territories as part of their grant reporting. There have been no external party
reviews of this information.

Data Limitations: From  calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the
survey and submission of data 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 3,602 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 2009, states
and territories reported that they monitored at  3,819 of the approximately 6,000 coastal
and Great Lakes beaches.  This monitoring varies among states. For example, North
Carolina monitors all its 240 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 2012, EPA expects all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states
and territories to again apply for grants to implement monitoring and notification
programs.

References:
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2009 Swimming Season." EPA-
823-F-08-006.  Washington, DC, May 2010.  Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2009
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/grants/guidance/index.html
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "A Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC, 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/seasons/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/R-04/023. Washington, DC, August 2005.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Water Safe to Drink

    •   Percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories that
       has access to continuous drinking water meeting all applicable health-based
       drinking water standards measured on a four quarter rolling average basis

-------
Performance  Database:  SDWIS  (Safe  Drinking Water Information System)  is the
database used to track this performance measure throughout the United  States now
including  the  Pacific territories.   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. However, because of
computational idiosyncrasies in CNMI (including double counting of bottle water service
with utility-provided water,  and areas which lack 24-hour water service),  we apply a
hand-correction to the CNMI figures.

Data Source: Health-based violations are reported by  the territories. 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 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 now solely 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 (all but the poorest residents rely on bottled water
or rain water as the main 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: The territories follow QA/QC procedures in the data submitted to
EPA for entry into the SDWIS database. 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
Program Guidance.  The Agency will continue to 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  Quality Reviews:  Although the territories are responsible for reviewing and
assuring  quality  of health-based violation reporting, EPA periodically communicates
directly with public water systems to corroborate the data (and continues to do so as part
of ongoing enforcement and compliance efforts).  EPA is also in direct communication
with the  CNMI  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) potential for 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 has worked with the
territories of Guam and CNMI over the last few years to improve performance on data
collection and entry.  Regarding percentage of population  receiving 24-hour water, EPA
continues to work closely with the CNMI public water system and the CNMI Division of
Environment  Quality to both more accurately assess  percentage of population receiving
24-hour  water,  and  to  provide 24-hour water  to  an increasing percentage  of the
population.

References:
USEPA SDWIS/FED: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases/indexx.html

GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2012  Performance Measure:

•   Number of urban water projects initiated/completed addressing water quality
    issues in the  community

Measure Database:
Data will be stored in a database or spreadsheet that includes fields identifying the
grantee name, grant number, location, and when the project was initiated and completed.

Measure Definitions:

Initiated will be defined as meeting the following criteria:
       1) Stakeholder group identified;
       2) Scope of Work submitted that includes:
              a) Description of water body name and location (with photos and maps),
              b) Demography of community living near the water body,

-------
              c) Problem statement of waterbody (e.g., impairments, trash, aesthetics,
              access, safety)
              d) Project goals (description of community's use of water body, both
              current and desired state (include metrics where they exist), and
              e) Project description (address how it will take the water body from
              current to desired use); and
       3) Urban Waters grant awarded by EPA to the stakeholder group.

Completed Criteria:
       1) Results/Measures of Success—(project dependent) but should include
       measures that describe how the water meets the desired state of community use.
       At a minimum, this should include site changes and all metrics identified in
       Section 1, project goals of the scope of work;
       2) Partners and Funding—description of all project partners and all funding
       (includes UW funds and other leveraged funds and resources), and
       3) Replication—description of outreach and education  efforts within the
       community and to other communities.

Project will be defined as an individual grant awarded to a showcase community.

Data Source:
Data will come from reports prepared by grantees. EPA will aggregate the data provided
by each grantee to arrive at a national total.

Methods and Assumptions:
Data will be reviewed by Regional EPA urban water coordinators and grant managers to
verify activities and accomplishments.

Suitability:
Measure tracks progress toward meeting EPA's strategic goals to improve and restore
impaired water quality on a watershed basis and facilitate ecosystem-scale protection and
restoration under EPA Strategic Goal 2 Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.2 (Protect
Water Quality), Sub-objective 2.2.1 (Protect and Improve Water Quality on a Watershed
Basis) and Goal 3, Cleaning Up Our Communities, Objective 1 (Promote Sustainable and
Livable Communities).

QA/QC Procedures:
Data will be reported by grant recipients and reviewed by EPA Regional grant managers
for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of performance measure definitions.
EPA will provide guidance for grantees on how to calculate acreage restored or protected.

References:
Urban Waters Strategic Framework
EPA Urban Waters website: http://www.epa.gov/ow/urbanwaters/

-------
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis and
Restore and Protect the Gulf of Mexico

    •   Prevent water pollution and protect coastal and ocean systems to improve
       national and regional coastal aquatic system health on the "good/fair/poor"
       scale of the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) Long-term 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.

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 2000-2006 (except Alaska and Hawaii), in
Alaska in 2002 and 2004, in Hawaii in 2002 and 2004,  and in Puerto Rico in 2000 and
2004, and in other island territories (Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands) in
2004.  Surveys collect condition information regarding water quality, sediment quality
and biotic condition at 70-100 sites/Region (e.g., mid-Atlantic)  each year of collection
prior to 1999 and at 35-150 sites in each state or territory/year (site number dependent
upon  state) after 1999.  Additional sampling by the National Estuary Program (NEP)
included all individual national estuaries; the total number of sites within NEP boundaries
was 30 for the two-year period 2000-2002.

These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States
follow a rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training  by EPA
personnel. Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a
national EPA contract. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(either the National Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by
EPA.

Methods, Assumptions  and  Suitability:   The  surveys  are  conducted  using a
probabilistic survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population
(in this case - all  estuarine  resources  of the specific  state.)  The collection  design
maximizes the spatial spread  between sites, located  by specific latitude-longitude

-------
combinations. The survey utilizes an indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to
increase  the  probability of encountering water  quality,  sediment quality  and biotic
condition problems, if they exist.  Based on the QAPP and field collection manual, a site
in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global Positioning System (GPS) and
water quality is measured on board at multiple depths.  Water samples are taken  for
chemistry;  sediment samples are taken  for chemistry, toxicity  testing and  benthic
community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data and
provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant
concentrations.   Samples  are stored in accordance  with field manual instructions and
shipped  to the processing laboratory.  Laboratories follow QA  plans  and complete
analyses  and provide electronic  information to the state or EPA.   EPA and the state
exchange data to ensure that each has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess
Regional conditions, whereas the states analyze the data to assess conditions  of state-
specific waters.  Results of analyses on a national  and  Regional basis are reported as
chapters  in the National  Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) series.  The overall Regional
condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators'  scores  used in  the  Coastal
Condition Report  (in the NCCR II 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 measure 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
appeared in the  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 five  island territories.  Adherence to the plans  are
determined by  field training  (conducted  by EPA/ORD),  field audits  (conducted  by

-------
EPA/ORD), round robin testing of chemistry laboratories (conducted by EPA/ORD),
overall systems audits of state programs and national laboratory practices (conducted by
EPA) sample splits  (sent  to reference laboratories),  blind  samples (using reference
materials) and  overall information systems audits  (conducted by EPA/ORD).  Batch
sample processing for laboratory analyses requires the inclusion of QA samples in each
batch.  All states are subject to audits at least once every two years.  All participants
received training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years.

Data Quality Reviews:  Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA/
ORD at the Regional  and national level in 2000-2003  (National Coastal  Assessment
2000-2003) and by the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003  (assessment
completed in June, 2003, and written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no
deficiencies). No deficiencies were found in  the program.  A national laboratory used in
the program (University of Connecticut) for nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and
fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the Inspector General's  Office for potential
falsification of laboratory results in connection with other programs not related to NCA.
The NCA has conducted its own audit assessment and only one incorrect use of  a
chemical digestion method for  inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was found. This
error was corrected and all samples "digested" incorrectly were reanalyzed at no cost.

Data Limitations: Data limitations are few.  Because the data are collected in a manner
to permit calculation  of uncertainty  and designed to meet  a specific Data  Quality
Objective (DQO) (<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state estimate), the
results at the Regional level (appropriate for this performance measure) are within about
2- 4% of true  values dependent upon the  specific sample type.   Other limitations  as
follows: (a) Even though methodology errors are minimized by audits, in the first year of
the NCA program (2000) some errors  occurred resulting in loss  of some data.  These
problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been observed since,  (b) In some
instances, (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found irregularities regarding the
precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity  testing  of controls exceeded detection
limit, etc.). In these cases, the data were "flagged"  so that users are aware of the potential
limitations, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at a small scale
(~  10%) does  not result in a significant  increase  in uncertainty  in the  estimate  of
condition. Wholesale data losses of multiple indicators throughout the U.S. coastal states
and territories would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure,  (d) The only
major source of external variability is year-to-year  climatic variation (drought vs. wet,
major climatic event, etc.)  and the only source of internal variation is modification  of
reporting indicators (e.g., new indices, not a change in data collected and analyzed). This
internal  reporting modification requires a re-analysis of earlier information to permit
direct comparison, (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag from the time of collection until
reporting.   Sample analysis generally takes one year and data analysis another. Add
another year for report production and peer review,  (f) Data collections are completed
annually;  The EPA/ORD  data  collection collaboration  continued  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)    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.

 (2)    Data from ORD's National Coastal Assessment Program (NCA) for 2003-2006
       will be presented in the NCCRIV. This report is projected to be available at the
       end of calendar year 2011.
 (3)    ORD's National Coastal Assessment Program has ended and the Office of Water
       is now administering the program  as  part of the National  Aquatic  Resource
       Surveys.  The next coastal survey report, NCCRV,  is scheduled for release in
       calendar year 2012.

 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. EPA-620/R-03/002.
7.    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008. National Coastal Condition Report
     III. EPA 842-R-08-002.

-------
FY 2012Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Gulf of Mexico

•   Restore, enhance, or protect acres of important coastal and marine habitats.

Performance Database:   Coastal Emergent wetlands border the Gulf of Mexico and
include tidal saltwater and freshwater marshes and mangroves. Encompassing over two
million hectares (five million acres or more than half of the national total), the Gulf of
Mexico coastal wetlands serve as essential habitat for a diverse range of species.

Total wetland loss (coastal and inland) for the five Gulf States from 1780 until 1980 was
estimated to be 40 million square kilometers, approximately 50%.  Between 1985 and
1995 the  southeastern U.S. lost the greatest area of wetland (51% of the national total).
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 GMPO, aerial photography, ground truthing, digital topographic data and
verification at the end of the project.

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 there 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 RFPs
2.  GMP  Partnership Challenge Grant Programs
       A) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program Supports Gulf Ecological
       Management Sites (GEMS)

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. NOAA additionally requires 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. This  QA/QC  includes but is not limited to, aerial

-------
photography, ground truthing; transect growth monitoring and routine site visits of all
funded projects.

Data Quality Reviews:
Award Process for supporting habitat at restoration projects through partnership
cooperative agreements.
       1.  Gulf of Mexico Program Office Competitive RFPs
       2.  GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Program Grants

             A) 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 and the Gulf of Mexico Foundation.
             Ensures there is no duplication of funding and seeks opportunities for
             brokering with other restoration grant programs.

       Review of the restoration data occurs in the field and through field analysis by the
project  manager  as  the project  progresses.  This  review is accomplished  through
measures  such as aerial photography,  ground truthing, transect growth monitoring and
routine site visits of all funded projects, and is 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 during the life of the
effort through required EPA  Quarterly Reports and is 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
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

-------
Handley, L., Altsman, D., and DeMay, R., eds., 2007, Seagrass Status and Trends in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2006-5287, 267 p.

FY 2012Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Gulf of Mexico

•   Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 13 coastal
    areas

Performance Database:  EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" and EPA's WATERS Expert
Query Tool

Data Source:  Data regarding impaired segments are collected from EPA's "Surf Your
Watershed" and EPA's WATERS Expert Query Tool every two years as the databases
are updated as determined by the TMDL schedule.  Another source is the  Decision
Documents which are  an approved EPA source and is basically the QAPP plan for the
state 303(d) data.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  To begin the project, the Decision Documents
for each state must be 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 the
Decision Documents in that only the delisted water bodies are listed in the document.
For these two states "Surf Your Watershed" and WATERS Expert Query Tool  are used.
All the data is cross  referenced:  "Surf Your Watershed" is  cross referenced with
WATERS  and the Decision  Documents  and  WATERS  are cross  referenced to the
Decision Documents.  After all data are cross reference against each of the sources, tables
were created for each  watershed in the Gulf of Mexico Program's Priority Watershed
Inventory.  In all,  67 tables were created and populated with information obtained from
"Surf Your Watershed".  These tables included an id num for the segment to view
location of the segment in the map, the  segment id with link to URL in "Surf Your
Watershed", name of the  state basin the  segment is located within, the watershed the
segment is  located in,  the name of the waterbody,  the number of impairments for that
segment, the impairments  for that segment, and  the year  the impairment  is listed.
Delisting information is also listed in the  tables  for segments that have that information
available. The information available in that table includes the id num, the segment id, the
waterbody name, what impairment was delisted, the basis for the delisting, and a link to
the 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) segments for that
state.  Although, the segments listed in the shapefile do not always match the documents
that EPA provides ("Surf Your Watershed", WATERS Expert Query Tool, and Decision
Documents).  Therefore, it may be necessary to contact the state for additional shapefiles
that contain other segments not available  in the shapefile originally obtained  from the

-------
state.  The data is grouped by the watershed with a name to represent the area in the
shapefile (ex. 2002_03170009_303d_line).   New fields are  added to the shapefile to
provide  meaningful data to the Gulf of Mexico Program Office.  New fields include, id
num (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  for  each  watershed to  show the  number  of  impairments  in  each of the
watersheds.  Impaired Water Segments are visible with a red cross hatch, while a segment
that has a TMDL completed would appear with a yellow cross hatch, and a Restored
segment would appear with a blue cross hatch. Each segment is then labeled with the id
num that is found in the shapefile and the table.  All maps include the HUC number and
the HUC name, the map, legend, scale bar, inset map, GMPO logo and a disclaimer for
the state if one was  provided, and the date the map was created.  In all, 67 maps were
created.

QA/QC Procedures:  To create the best report possible, there were three EPA sources
used to cross reference the data. Each source was verified with the other two sources (ex.
"Surf Your Watershed" vs. WATERS,  "Surf Your Watershed vs. Decision Documents,
WATERS vs. Decision Documents).  It was pertinent that each of the sources matched
and no discrepancies in the listed impaired segments could be found. No state documents
were used in this process, since all state documents have to go through EPA review.
Thus,  the EPA sources used were a result of EPA reviewing the state documents.

Data  Quality Reviews:   There are no outside reviews of the  report generated.  The
tables and maps generated  for each cycle are uploaded  to  the  "Surf Your  Gulf
Watershed" website located on the Gulf of Mexico Program home web page. This "Surf
Your Gulf Watershed" details the impaired segments for the Gulf Program's 13 priority
areas.

New web pages were created to display this data from the GMPO web site. This new site
is  a subset of "Surf Your Watershed"  and  is labeled as "Surf Your Gulf Watershed".
"Surf Your Gulf Watershed" details the impaired segments  for  the 13 priority areas.

Data Limitations:  Data is 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 of 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

-------
EPA GMPO's "Surf Your Gulf Watershed" http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/surfgulf/

FY 2012 Performance Measures; Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

   •   Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining
       standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained
   •   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 now fully attaining standards

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
information compiled from states'  listings of impaired waters as required by Clean Water
Act Section 303(d), which are recorded in the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and
Implementation System (ATTAINS). This information (found at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters 10/attains nation_cy.control?p report tvpe=T) 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. ATTAINS also
includes information on other impaired waters for which TMDLs have been completed.
See "New and Improved Data Systems" for more information on the ATTAINS database.

There are several reasons why EPA or states may determine that specific waterbodies
listed as impaired in 2002, the baseline year, are no longer impaired in the current
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 an impaired water may no longer exceed water quality standards.
Any  such removals of waterbody 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 2009, boundaries and data on 12-digit HUC code watersheds
were 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). 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://water.epa.gov/aboutow/goal s_obj ectives/waterplan/pamsfy 11 _index. cfm).

Data Source: The primary data source for these measures is state 303(d) lists of their
impaired waterbodies needing development of TMDLs, and required submittals of
monitoring information pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. These
lists/reports are submitted each biennial reporting cycle. Most states have provided this
information in Integrated Reports, pursuant to EPA guidance  (see "New/Improved Data
Systems" below). The baseline for this measure is the derived from the 2002 reporting
cycle. 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 waterbody impairments. Once EPA  approves a state's 303(d)
list, the information is entered into ATTAINS, as described above.

The efficiency measure for the section 106 grant program is derived by dividing the
cumulative 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 waterbody segments now fully attaining standards.

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 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/models/.
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 303(d) lists and 305(b) 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 continue to work with
states to facilitate accurate, comprehensive, and georeferenced data submissions. 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: Independent reports have cited the ways in which 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 March 15, 2000, Government Accounting
Office report Water  Quality: Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data,
EPA 's Draft Report on the Environment, and the 2007 Office of the Inspector General
report, Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and Measures to
Demonstrate Environmental Results.

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, ATTAINS,  and a 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) provides
comprehensive direction to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act
sections 305(b) and  303(d). EPA also issued a 2010 Integrated Report clarification
memo (released May 5, 2009 available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/guidance/final52009.html) which includes suggestions
for the use of the rotating basin approach and Category 3, circumstances and expectation
for "partial approval/further review pending" determinations, and using and reporting on
Statewide  Statistical Survey Data in ATTAINS and the National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress.

Also, the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of
Best Practices (released on the Web July 31, 2002,  at
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.htmB 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 (March 2008). 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.

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 waterbodies.
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. In 2005 EPA issued listing
guidance entitled Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing,  and Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act. This document provided
a comprehensive compilation of relevant guidance EPA had issued to date regarding the
Integrated Report. It included some specific changes from the 2004 guidance. For
example, the 2006 Integrated Report Guidance provided 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 gave
additional clarity and flexibility on reporting alternatives to TMDLs for attaining water
quality standards (e.g., utilization of reporting Category 4b).

-------
In May 2009 EPA released Information Concerning 2010 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. Integrated Report
list submissions remained steady with 15 lists submitted to EPA by the April 1, 2010,
deadline. Timely submittal and EPA review of integrated reports is important to
demonstrate state and EPA success in accomplishing Strategic Plan goals for water
quality.

EPA has combined the former National TMDL Tracking System and the former National
Assessment Database into one integrated system, ATTAINS, which became operational
in May 2008. ATTAINS tracks the status of all assessed waters and waterbody
impairments, including impaired waterbodies. Also, EPA released the Water Quality
Exchange (WQX) which provides data exchange capability to any organization that
generates data of documented quality and would like to contribute that data to the
national STORET 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 Exchange
Network node. EPA rolled out a web data entry tool called WQXweb  for users who have
not invested in the node technology.

References:

USEPA, 2008, EPA 's 2008 Report on the Environment (Final Report)
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=l 90806

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 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. 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/2003 sp.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
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/elements/.

-------
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.

FY 2012 Performance Measures; Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

•   Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on
    a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative)
•   Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA [State
    TMDLs] on schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative)

Note: A TMDL is a technical plan for reducing pollutants in order to attain water quality
standards.  The terms "approved" and "established" refer to the completion and
approval of the TMDL itself.

Performance Database: The Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Tracking And ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS) is the database which  captures water
quality information related to these measures. ATTAINS is an integrated system that
documents and manages the connections between state assessment and listing decisions
reported under sections 305(b) and 303(d) (i.e., integrated reporting) and completed
TMDLs.  This system holds information about assessment decisions and restoration
actions across reporting cycles and over time until water quality standards  are attained.
TMDL information (found at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters 10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T) is used to
generate reports that identify waters that have an approved TMDL.  Annual TMDL totals,
spanning from 1996 to the present, are available in ATTAINS by fiscal year. As TMDLs
and other watershed-related activities are developed and implemented, waterbodies that
were once impaired will meet water quality standards.  Thus these  TMDL  measures are
closely tied to the program assessment measure, "Number of waterbody segments
identified by States in 2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality standards are
now fully attained."

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, the Watershed
Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results system 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 publicly reviewed
during their development. Upon approval by EPA, relevant information from each
TMDL is entered into ATTAINS by EPA Regional staff.

QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data is provided by EPA Regional staff and through
cross-checks of ATTAINS 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).

Data Quality Review: In the past, 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 2007 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.

Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information,
EPA continues to improve the database and oversee quality review of existing data.  Data
quality has been improving and will continue to improve as existing data entry
requirements and procedures are being reevaluated and communicated with data entry
practitioners.

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 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

       •  Percentage of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance at any
          time during the fiscal year
       •  Percentage of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that
          comply with their permitted wastewater discharge standards

Performance Databases: The Permit Compliance System, (PCS) tracks permit
compliance and enforcement data for sources permitted under the Clean Water Act
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Data in PCS include major
permittee self reported data contained in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), data on
permittee compliance status, data on state and EPA inspection and enforcement response.

Data Source:  Permittee self reported DMR data are entered into PCS by either state or
EPA Regional offices.   PCS automatically compares the entered  DMR data with  the
pollutant limit parameters specified in the facility NPDES  permit.  This automated
process  identifies those  facilities which  have emitted  effluent in excess of permitted
levels.  Facilities are designated as being  in Significant Noncompliance  (SNC) when
reported effluent exceedances are 20%  or  more above permitted levels  for  toxic
pollutants and/or 40% or more above permitted levels of conventional pollutants.  PCS
contains additional data obtained through reports and on-site inspections, which are used
to determine SNC,  including:   non-effluent limit  violations such as  unauthorized
bypasses,  unpermitted discharges, and pass through of pollutants which  cause water
quality  or health problems; permit  schedule violations; non-submission  of DMRs;
submission of DMRs 30 or more days late; and violation of state or federal  enforcement
orders.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  There are established computer algorithms to
compare DMR effluent data against permitted effluent levels. The algorithms also
calculate the degree of permitted effluent exceedance to determine whether
toxic/conventional pollutant SNC thresholds have been reached.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures [See references]
are in place for PCS data entry.  State and regional PCS data entry staff are required to
take PCS training courses [See references].  Quality Management Plans (QMPs) are
prepared for each Office within The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA). The Office of Compliance (OC) has established extensive processes for
ensuring timely input, review and certification of PCS information.  OC's current QMP,

-------
effective for 5 years, was approved July 29, 2003 by the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI).  The required re-approval of OECA's QMP has been prepared and is
in the management approval process at this time.

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: 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 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on  a Watershed Basis

   •  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.
   •  Percentage  of submissions  of new or revised water quality standards from
      States and Territories that are approved by EPA

-------
Performance Database:  The Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application
(WATA), an internal tracking application managed by the Office of Science and
Technology described at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf, is the
performance database for these measures.  The information in this system provides the
baseline and performance data for these measures.

Data Source:  The underlying data sources for this measure are submissions from states
and territories of water quality standards to EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act and
EPA's water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR Part 131.  States and territories are
required to review their water quality standards at least once every three years  and submit
any new or revised water quality standards to EPA for review and approval. Each
submission is accompanied by a letter from an appropriate official,  and includes a
certification by the state or territorial attorney general that the standards were duly
adopted pursuant to state or territorial law.

EPA Regional Office staff members compile information from each submission and enter
it into the WATA system.  The information includes identifying data (name of
jurisdiction, date of submission), data concerning components of the submission,  and data
concerning EPA's action on the submission. EPA has delegated approval and
disapproval decisions to the Regional Administrator; the Regional Administrator may re-
delegate the decisions to the appropriate Division Director, but no further.  Approval
decisions are judicially reviewable, and are accompanied by an appropriate
administrative record.

Methods 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 EPA Regional
Offices at least five months to reach and document a valid approval decision. EPA
management believes this is an adequate time for processing most submissions. A
"submission" is determined by the submitting jurisdiction, as described above.  The
metric then searches for whether the Regional Office has made any approval decision
concerning the submission. If EPA approves the  submission in full by the end of the
reporting period, it will be  counted with an approval value of 1. If EPA disapproves all
provisions of the standards, it will be counted with an approval value of 0 (zero).  In
some cases the Regional decision official may decide to approve some portions of the
standards provisions, disapprove some portions, or defer actions on some portions. To
accommodate these possibilities, and to reflect the complex nature of some submissions,

-------
the WATA system allows Regional staff to track portions of a submission as separate
parts with weights corresponding to the number of actual provisions involved. When
different decisions are reached on different parts or provisions of a submission, the metric
calculates a fractional approval value.  The fractional approval value is a number between
0 and 1, equal to the number of provisions approved, divided by the total number of
provisions in the original submission. For example, if a submission contains 10
provisions and EPA approves 8 and disapproves 2, then the metric would count this as
0.8 submissions.  The final performance metric is the sum of full or fractional approval
values divided by the total number of submissions during the reporting period.

   •   Number of States and Territories that within the preceding three year period
      submitted new or revised water quality criteria acceptable to EPA that reflect new
      scientific information from EPA or other sources not considered in the previous
      standards

This measure utilizes a Regional Office entry in the  WATA system which indicates
whether a submission or submission part includes one or more new water quality criteria
or revised criteria that reflect new scientific information from EPA or other sources not
considered in the previous criteria. Biological criteria that are reflected explicitly in
designated uses would count under this entry.  If a state or territory has not adopted any
such criteria, the jurisdiction can nevertheless be counted under this measure if (a) EPA
has issued new or revised water quality criteria, including revisions to the published table
of EPA recommended criteria at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable, 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 2012 any qualifying submissions from May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2012, that
were approved by September 30,  2012, 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 2010, could be counted in FYs 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012 but not in FY
2013.

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 to 60 submissions
per year in recent years, which is within the range than can be adequately reviewed with
available resources.

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 continuing to
enhance the existing WATA system to improve its capabilities and data quality.

References:
USEPA.  May 1,2009.  Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application:  Users
Guide. Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf.

USEPA.  2000. Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40
CFR part 131. Available at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfr 13 l_05.html.

USEPA.  August 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http ://www. epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:  Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

-------
   •   Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (millions of pounds), phosphorous
       (millions of pounds), and sediment (tons) from nonpoint sources to
       waterbodies. (Section 319 funded projects only.)

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
Assessment TMDL Tracking and ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS), 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. In the past, we had to calculate the annual load
reduction achieved as an increment from the previous year.  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 would be 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 program assessment 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 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.

In an effort to improve the accuracy of the annual national load reduction amount, we
have modified this method of calculating the annual increment. We explicitly instruct the
States to enter their load reduction values within the year they should be reported, and to
only enter new (not cumulative) load reduction amounts.  Then, because the GRTS can
automatically track when the State enters the load reduction in the database, we simply
sum the load reductions entered within the reporting timeframes.  The user can also make
corrections to report the load reductions entered at the wrong time by associating a load
reduction date to the value.

QA/QC Procedures:  QA/QC of load reduction estimates generated by states is
dependent on individual state procedures, such as state Quality Management Plans
(QMPs), which are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.

EPA provides user support and training to states in the use of the STEPL and Region 5
models. EPA emphasizes that Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) should be
developed (in accordance with EPA approved State QMPs) for watershed projects,
especially where water quality models are being used or where monitoring is being
conducted. EPA also stresses that site-specific parameters be used whenever possible for
input to water quality models, as opposed to default input values provided by some
modeling tools.

States have continual access and opportunity to review the information in GRTS to
ensure it accurately reflects the data they entered (according to their QA procedures).
EPA periodically reviews GRTS and reminds states of the critical importance of their
completing mandated data elements in a timely, high-quality manner.

Data Quality Review:  Data entered in GRTS are periodically reviewed by EPA
Regions and Headquarters. Regional personnel also maintain hardcopies of the states
work programs, watershed project implementation plans, and Annual Progress Reports.
Verification of data in GRTS can be cross-checked with these documents to ensure
quality, consistency, and reliability in progress reporting on an incremental (such as,
year-to-year) basis, or to note any problems in data quality in GRTS. EPA frequently

-------
reviews various aggregation(s) of all the data in GRTS by our use of "ad-hoc" and
standard reports available in the GRTS reporting system.

In the past, Nonpoint Source Program reporting under Section 319 had been identified as
an Agency-level weakness under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. The
Agency's establishment and subsequent enhancements of GRTS has served to mitigate
this problem by requiring states to identify the activities and results of projects funded
with Section 319(h).  In response to the FMFIA evaluation, EPA has been working with
states and other stakeholders to improve data input and quality.  We sponsor national
GRTS-users group meetings each year. These meetings serve not only to meet the
training needs of the user community, but also provide a forum for discussing needed
enhancements to GRTS.  These enhancements range from better capturing environmental
results to improving consistency of data entry to facilitate state-by-state comparisons.

The CWA Sections 319(h)(l 1) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint
Source Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load
reductions, and water quality improvements. These sections provide the EPA Office of
Water (OW) authority to require water quality monitoring and/or modeling, and to
require reporting by states to demonstrate their success in reducing nonpoint source
pollutant loads and improving water quality. OW has issued several guidance documents
designed to improve state NPSMPs, watershed-based projects, and consistency in state
progress reporting, including their use of GRTS. In September 2001, EPA issued
"Modifications to  Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants."
This memorandum outlines the process for reporting in GRTS load reductions for
nutrients and sediment (for applicable Section 319(h) funded projects).  Our current
"National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines" (October, 2003) includes
sections on all nonpoint source grant reporting requirements, including GRTS reporting.
Furthermore, EPA, in consultation with the States, has established the nonpoint source
program activity measures (PAMs) — including nonpoint load reductions. We have also
communicated (e.g., via email) to states further detailed explanations of the NFS program
activity measures, expected reporting sources and dates, and results of our reviews of
data input to GRTS by the States.

Data Limitations: State NPSMP work to model (and monitor) watersheds is often not
integrated or coordinated with state water quality monitoring and assessment strategies,
and therefore use of the data may be rather limited.  Load reduction data are typically
generated from the use of water quality models, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in
model inputs and outputs. States generally do not apply model results to decision-
making for implementing and/or revising their NFS Management Programs.

State assessments  of load reductions and water quality typically include uncertainties
associated with any measuring or modeling tools. Variability in the environment, as well
as in state methods and application of tools limit the accuracy of data for describing load
reductions and water quality at the project level. Aggregating the load reduction data up
to the national measure compounds the level of uncertainty, thereby preventing the
Agency from assigning a reasonable numerical confidence level to it.

-------
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for these data.

New/Improved Data or Systems: A significant improvement to the GRTS was the
conversion from a Lotus Domino system to an Oracle database in 2005. 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. Reports are easily customized  to
fit programmatic needs of both state and EPA.

Another focus of improvement has been to simplify the georeferencing process for GRTS
users. In 2008, we released a new mapping tool, which makes it much easier for States to
geolocate their 319 projects and identify the impacted waterbodies. This tool links to  the
WATERS database, enabling linkages between 319 projects and other water program
features, such as impaired waters. In  addition, GRTS users and the public can query for
319 projects using a similar map interface.  These improvements in mapping 319 projects
have made it easier to answer questions for stakeholders, like "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?"

We are also making efforts to ease the data entry burden on the States by offering them
the flexibility of entering their data in different formats.  States currently have the option
to either enter their data over the web using an online form, or directly upload their
information into GRTS  as an XML file. Many States have expressed interest in using
XML but are unfamiliar with the technology. EPA will provide training on XML at our
annual User Group Meeting, and through a series of webinars. Also, since most users are
familiar with Microsoft Excel, we will develop an Excel template for XML import.

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/).

-------
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 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

    •   Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits (including tribal)
       that are issued in the fiscal year
    •   Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are issued in the fiscal
       year

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]
          Permit Management Oversight System (PMOS). [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 Permit Management Oversight System
(PMOS) database to track the current or expired status of facilities covered under non-
storm water general permits as well as to track issuance of priority permits.  Prior to
PMOS, the Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) was 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 PMOS database is a web-based system that tracks the specific permits that
each State and Region has identified as priority.  States and Regions enter the permits,
and EPA HQ uses PCS/ICIS-NPDES to track permit issuance status of these permits.

Data Source: EPA's Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into PCS
and/or ICIS-NPDES, and States and EPA's Regional offices are responsible for entering
data into the PMOS. 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.  Beginning in FY 2008,
States and Regions were permitted to add to this list additional high-priority permits that
were expired less than two years or those that would expire within the fiscal year of
reporting.  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 a certain number of permits over the next fiscal year.  Regions enter their
commitments into PMOS. 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); PMOS is a web-based system that
is 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 "key data" fields, lat/long, and
compliance and enforcement data, and provides these lists to NPDES states and Regions
for review and cleanup. 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.

The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data
system, began in June 2006 and twenty-eight 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. PMOS (and its precursor, 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 2008, OWM
is planning to improve PMOS 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 twenty-eight 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 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

    •   Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended
       Efficiency

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.3
3 Beginning in 2008, the values for Phase I municipal stromwater and construction stormwater were added
and back-filled to 2002. POTW values were updated and back-filled based on the 2004 CWNS.

-------
To calculate the program assessment efficiency measure, the annual4 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.

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 1999.5

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,
4 The method of calculating the denominator was changed in 2008 to reflect total annual dollars, rather
than cumulative dollars.
5 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/pkeyword.cfm?keywords=economic+analysis&program_id=0

-------
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."   As  EPA  develops  the new Construction  and  Development
Rulemaking, new and better sources of data may be developed that  may help to refine
this calculation.

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 program assessment denominator, i.e. the total number of dollars devoted to
the EPA Surface Water Program (SWP), are assembled and updated as new data become
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 (TFMS).  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 for review
during the program assessment 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 database]. (2000). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].

"Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule." (1999). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management]. Available
at:
http://cfpub. epa.gov/npdes/pkeyword. cfm?keywords=economic+analysis&program_id=0

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 program assessment Efficiency Measure Spreadsheet [Excel Spreadsheet].
Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater
Management].

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis
       •  Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF

Performance  Database: Clean  Water  State Revolving  Fund National  Information
Management
System (NEVIS.)

Data Sources:  Data are from reporting by municipal and  other facility operators, state
regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's regional staff. Data are collected and reported
once yearly.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NEVIS are the units of
performance. These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.

-------
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and regional offices are responsible for
compiling the data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance
with expected trends.
States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual
memoranda. A generic memorandum would be titled: "Request for Annual Update of
Data for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System, July 1, 200X through June 30, 200X."

Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and regional offices annually review the
data submitted by the states. These state data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrfin individual state reports. EPA's
headquarters addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through
the appropriate EPA regional office. An annual EPA headquarters' "NJJVIS 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 as a result of EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions. These definitions
are publicly available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf. There is typically a
lag of approximately two months from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the
NEVIS database, and when the data are quality-checked and available for public use.

Error Estimate: Due to the rapid growth of this program, past estimates of annual
performance (relative to a target), compared to actual performance data received two
years later, have been accurate to an average of approximately plus or minus2 percentage
points.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  This system has been operative since 1996. It  is
updated annually, and data fields are changed or added as needed.

References:
State performance data as shown in NEVIS are available by state at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NEVIS is available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf

-------
The  Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September  28,
2001) addresses the quality of data in NIMS. Not publicly available.

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

   •   Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to  drinking water
       supply and wastewater disposal.
   •   Percent of project federal funds expended  on time  within  the anticipated
       project construction schedule set forth in the Management Control  Policy
       Efficiency

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).  This modified database is utilized to
establish funding priorities for all  federal  funds identified for water and  wastewater
infrastructure in rural Alaska including the ANV program.

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.

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 2009 the STARS application will undergo standard ongoing
support and updates to maintain database integrity, efficiency, and accuracy.

References:

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

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 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Coastal and Ocean Water

   •  Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites  that  will  have
      achieved environmentally acceptable conditions  (as reflected in each  site's
      management plan and measured through on-site monitoring programs.)

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 2009-2014 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 2009.

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 site, a consideration of
anticipated use, a monitoring program, and site management conditions or practices that
are necessary for protection  of the aquatic environment. Each SMMP is unique to the
dump  site and is developed  with the opportunity  for stakeholder  input.  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:  The required  monitoring and environmentally
acceptable conditions are reflected in the SMMP for each ocean dumping site, as a result
the survey/sampling methodologies and assumptions will be  site-specific.  However, if a
Region utilizes EPA's Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold, established procedures for use
of the  equipment and handling  samples on the OSV Bold must be followed. 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: The full extent of data limitations is not available.

Error  Estimate:  No error estimate is available for this data.

-------
New/Improved Data or Systems:  Reporting in  FY 2007 through FY 2010 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/quality/qmps.html
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

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Increase Wetlands

•   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  collected limited  data  on wetlands  losses and  gains in its
Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) permit tracking database. RAMS
was designed to be an administrative  aid in tracking permits, this it lacked  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 was also proprietary
making it  difficult to retrofit without  utilizing its original developers.  These and other
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.  To improve tracking of wetland gains and losses in the Section 404 permit
program, in  2007 with financial  support from  EPA,  the Corps  deployed a  new
standardized  nationwide permit tracking  system known  as  ORM2 (Operation and
maintenance business information link, Regulatory Module). EPA's subsequent FY 2010
launch of  a companion  system for ORM2 allows  EPA  staff to 404  regulatory actions
track and maintain coordination logs while viewing  ORM2 information. EPA's system is
Data on Aquatic Resource Tracking for Effective Regulation (DARTER).

Data Source:  ORM2 is the data source for this performance measure. Corps Regulatory
Program staff input data which is then viewable by EPA staff in DARTER.

-------
Methods, Assumptions  and  Suitability:   ORM2  is  the  definitive  source  of data
regarding wetland and other aquatic resource impacts authorized pursuant to the Section
404 permit program.  ORM2 was designed to provide improved tracking regarding:

   •   Type, quantity and location of aquatic resources impacted
   •   Type, quantity and location of aquatic resource mitigation
   •   Type  and  quantity of mitigation by  method  (i.e.,  restoration,  creation,
       enhancement, or preservation)
   •   Type and quantity of mitigation by mechanism (i.e., mitigation bank, in-lieu fee
       mitigation, or permittee-responsible mitigation)
   •   Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in
       acres)
   •   Spatial 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 (RIB ITS). With EPA's assistance RIB ITS has been
       deployed in approximately 18 Corps Districts.
QA/QC Procedures:   After the close of each fiscal year, the Corps begins compiling
national impact and mitigation data.  As part of the compilation process the Corps carries
out a detailed review of the data.  Any data anomalies are investigated with the subject
Corps District Office responsible for the source data.  Following this review and vetting
process, national summaries of impact and mitigation data are  shared with and vetted
through EPA. Beginning in FY 2009, the Corps culled nationwide data from ORM2 to
attest no net loss of wetlands, which enabled EPA to report on this performance measure.
EPA will  continue collaboration to track wetland  permitting  trends with the Corps to
determine whether annual net gains or losses have occurred.

Data Quality Reviews:   Independent  evaluations published  in 2001 by the National
Academy  of Sciences  (NAS) and the  General  Accounting Office (GAO)  provided a
critical  evaluation of  the effectiveness of  wetlands  compensatory mitigation (the
restoration, creation,  or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland
losses) for authorized losses of wetlands and other waters under Section 404 of the Clean
Water  Act.   The NAS determined that available data  was  insufficient to determine
whether or not  the Section 404 program was meeting its goal of no net loss of either
wetland area or function.  The NAS  added that available data suggested that the program
was not meeting its no net loss goal.  Among its  suite  of recommendations, the NAS
noted that wetland area and function lost and  regained over time should be tracked in a
national database and  that the Corps  should expand and improve  quality assurance
measures  for data entry.   These critical  reviews helped create the impetus  for the
development of ORM2.

-------
Data Limitations: FY 2008 was the first full year in which the Corps' 38 District offices
used ORM2 to track activities in the Section 404 Permit Program, thus there was a great
deal of system debugging, training, and trouble-shooting.  Also, while ORM2 has a great
deal of functionality, the Corps is phasing in the requirements to utilize all of the ORM2
data entry fields.  Overtime, as the system is completely  debugged, users become more
proficient, and data entry requirements expand,  ORM2 will provide increasingly more
accurate and robust data regarding wetland gains  and loses in  the Section 404 Permit
program.  In addition to these general data limitations, the Corps is currently evaluating
solutions to a key mitigation data reporting challenge. Wetland Impacts are tracked in
acres. Similarly mitigation provided by permittee-responsible mitigation and some of the
mitigation provided by in  lieu fee  programs and mitigation banks tracks is tracked in
acres.  However,  some mitigation banks and  in-lieu fee  programs may track their
mitigation as "credits" which are usually based on a function or condition assessment
protocol and there may not be a one to one relationship between a credit and an acre. For
reporting purposes, it would be more efficient if all impacts and mitigation could be
reported in acres.   The Corps and EPA are exploring ways to convert these "credits" to
"acres" to facilitate this reporting.  However, in light of the large number of different
function/condition assessment protocols used nationwide  at mitigation banks and in-lieu
fee programs, identifying a simple solution is proving challenging.

Error Estimate: Not applicable

References:
Information regarding ORM2 (Operation and maintenance business information link,
Regulatory Molule) can be  found at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/aqua/vol3-l.pdf

Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website:
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/WWW_WELCOME.NAVIGATION_PAG
E?tmp_next_page= 114145

National Academy of Sciences (2001).  Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the
Clean Water Act. Washington DC.   http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

       •  At least 75% of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal
          waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) will
          maintain chlorophyll a (CHLA) levels at less than or equal to 0.35 ugl-1
          and light clarity (Kd) levels at less than or equal to 0.20 m-1

       •  At least 75% of the monitored stations in the near shore and coastal
          waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) will
          maintain dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels at less than or equal to

-------
          0.75 uM and total phosphorus (TP) levels at less than or equal to 0.235
          uM

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,
NFS, SFWMD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and state/local government
agencies) have  contributed also provide significant funding.  In FY11, it  is anticipated
that EPA provide most of the funding for the three monitoring programs.

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
http: //sere. fiu. edu/wqmnetwork/FKNM S -CD/index. htm
(http: //ocean. fl ori dam ari ne. org/fknm s_wqpp/)

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The comprehensive monitoring program for
the FKNMS was developed by a large group of technically competent and knowledgeable
scientists familiar with the aquatic environment of the Florida Keys and  the coral reef
ecosystem.  For each monitoring project, EPA worked closely with recognized experts to
develop  a  detailed scope  of work  including  sampling  locations and  frequency,
parameters,  field  and  analytical  methods,  quality  assurance/quality   control,  data
management, and  reporting.   The monitoring  program  was   designed  to  provide
representative coverage of the entire 2,900 square  nautical miles  of the Sanctuary.  In
general, monitoring sites were  located throughout  the FKNMS on  a stratified-random
basis and were  determined to be compatible with EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment                           Program                            protocol
(http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/reports/epa904r01002.html).  The overall  monitoring
program  was designed to address the primary objective  of the comprehensive long-term
monitoring program for the FKNMS  - to provide data needed to make unbiased,
statistically rigorous statements about the "status of and trends in"  selected water quality
conditions and biological communities in the Sanctuary.  For the monitoring program, the
null hypothesis  is that there is no change over time. The field data are tested against the
null hypothesis that no change has occurred. All three monitoring projects (water quality,

-------
coral reef and seagrass) have demonstrated the ability to detect change over time and are
suitable for determining the health of the coral reef ecosystem of the FKNMS.

QA/QC Procedures:  The principal investigators for each monitoring project developed
and submitted to EPA a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure that the data
generated are accurate and representative of actual conditions and the degree of certainty
of the  data can be established.  The QAPPs were developed in accordance with EPA
guidance documents and the principal investigators consulted with the Regional QA/QC
Officer and the Project Officer for the monitoring projects.  It was required that the
QAPP  be approved by EPA before any work could begin on a monitoring project.

Data Quality Review: Through the QAPP, the principal investigators explicitly commit
to incorporating procedures that will reduce random and systematic errors.  In addition,
the 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.

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
http: //www. sere. 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 2012 Performance Measure: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis

   •  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.

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. sfmd.gov

-------
http:/my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2954.19761074&_dad=portal&_schema=POR
TAL&navpage=home
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 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin

    •   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.

Data Quality Review: The Regions and HQ QA/QC the annual NEP habitat data. EPA's
triennial NEP  program evaluations also include a review of the  data reported by the
NEPs' over the three year period. 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 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect the Puget Sound Basin

   •   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. 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). However, shellfish bed

-------
classification is not included in the NEP database.  EPA Region 10 tracks this measure
annually in the Agency's ACS  system.  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  conducted regular a  review  of the Puget  Sound reviews  of  NEP
implementation in  spring 2010 to help ensure that  information provided  in these
documents is accurate, and progress reported is in fact being achieved.  EPA Regional
staff also  met with Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) staff in summer
2010  to review, validate, and  update the targets for this performance measure.   As a
result, EPA increased the target for this measure.

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: The Regions and HQ QA/QC the annual NEP habitat data. EPA's
triennial NEP program evaluations also include a review  of the data reported by the
NEPs' over the  three year period. 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 habitat projects.

-------
References:          Links     to     NEPORT     can     be     found     at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport .

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Improve water quality on a watershed basis

   •   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.

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 2012 Performance Measure: Increase Wetlands and Improve Coastal and
Ocean Waters

-------
•  Number of wetland acres restored and improved under the 5-star, NEP, 319 and
   great waterbody programs (cumulative) increase wetlands
•  Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study
   areas Improve coastal and ocean water

Performance  Database:   The  Office of  Wetlands,  Oceans, and Watersheds has
developed a standardized nomenclature for defining  habitat protection and restoration
activities   (http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/gpra_defhtm)   and
specifying                            habitat                            categories
(http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/habtype.htm)..  The  key  field
used to calculate annual performance is habitat acreage. Results are calculated on a fiscal
year basis.

For the 5-Star Program:  The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the 5-Star
grantee, maintains a subgrant outcome tracking system that tracks the acres of wetlands
enhanced, established,  or  re-established,  miles  of riparian buffer restored,  and  other
information  such as number of  volunteers engaged  in restoration activities.  NFWF
provides to EPA annual  documentation of  acres  of wetlands  acreage  enhanced,
established, or re-established and  stream miles buffered and/or restored during the life of
the cooperative agreement in accordance with OWOW  requirements.

For NEPs Program: EPA has an on-line reporting system the National Estuary Program
On-line Reporting Tool  (NEPORT) that makes it possible  for NEPs and EPA to track
habitat projects.  Also, NEPs provide latitude and  longitude  data (where possible) for
each protection and restoration project.  These data are then mapped to highlight where
projects are located in each NEP study area.  Not only  does this help each NEP and EPA
precisely identify project sites, but it also makes it possible for NEPs and EPA to validate
NEPORT data, and highlights where different partners may be double counting acreage.
EPA annually  aggregates the data provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for
all 28 estuaries in the NEP.  EPA is confident that  the annually-reported data are as
accurate as possible.

For Section 319  Grants:  The 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 wetlands and
stream restoration  and improvement projects.   GRTS  also  provides EPA  and  other
stakeholders greater and  more  efficient access  to  data, information,  and program
accomplishments than  would  otherwise  be  available.  GRTS  provides  detailed
georeferencing (i.e., National Hydrography Dataset - or "NHD"-- reach  addresses) for
319-funded projects, project cost  information, load reduction information, and a host of
other elements.

Data Source:  5-Star data entered by grantee, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
and the National Association of Counties from annual  and final reports from subgrantees
into the common grantee managed database.  Subgrantees will report the number of acres

-------
of wetlands by habitat protection and restoration activity type from their annual and final
reports.

NEP documents such as annual work plans, which report on NEP achievements during
the  previous year, annual progress reports, State of the Bay reports, and implementation
tracking materials document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. Each
year, the NEPs  and Regional Offices validate the habitat data.  The NEPs input the  data
into a database --NEPORT-- that is managed by EPA. EPA annually aggregates the  data
provided by each NEP to arrive at a national total for all 28 estuaries in the NEP.  EPA is
confident that  the  annually-reported data  are as  accurate  as possible. 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_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/hab_fr.htm. The website visually
communicates NEP progress toward  protecting and restoring habitat to a wide range of
stakeholders and decision makers.

For Section  319 grants states enter information for individual projects into GRTS.  The
basic reporting  requirements specified by CWA section 319(h) are grantee performance
reports, nonpoint source progress reports, and financial status reports.  EPA also requires
reporting through the section 319 Grants  Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS).  States
are  encouraged  to attach final project reports completed under their grants to the Project
Evaluation field in GRTS.  States also enter, if applicable, if the project effects wetlands
(an  optional  field) and indicates the number of acres restored, improved, or protected.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The "Wetland Acres Restored or Improved"
measure  is  calculated by  adding  together wetlands acres from the restoration  and
improvement projects reported from  each of the relevant  programs  (NEP, 319, and 5-
Star) tracking and reporting systems for  grants.  These databases are  as follows: the 319
Grants  Reporting and Tracking  System  (GRTS),  NEP's  Performance  Indicators
Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT) and Wetlands Program's Five-Star Restoration
Grant Database.

The "Habitat Acres Restored and Protected" measure encompasses a general term  that
describes a range of activities  and is interpreted broadly to include:  creation of habitat,
acquisition of sites for the purpose of protection, conservation easements and deed
restrictions, increasing submerged aquatic vegetation coverage, increasing the number of
permanent shellfish bed openings, and increasing the amount of anadromous fish habitat.
There is not necessarily a direct correlation between the number of habitat acres restored
and protected and ecosystem health, nor is habitat quantity or quality the only indicator of
ecosystem health. EPA has defined and  provided examples of protection and restoration
activities for purposes  of tracking and reporting measures  (see citation for the PIVOT
website in references below.)

QA/QC Procedures:  Primary data are prepared by staff in each NEP based on their own
reports and  on  data provided by partner agencies/organizations that  directly engage in
habitat protection and  restoration activities. EPA requests that the  NEPs follow EPA

-------
guidance to prepare their reports. EPA Regional  Offices and Headquarters staff then
validate individual NEP totals. Headquarters staff calculates national totals.  EPA actions
are consistent with data quality and  management policies.  State CWA  319 Quality
Management Plans (QMPs), are periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.
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: No audits or quality reviews have been conducted.

Data Limitations:  Current data limitations include: (1) information that may be reported
inconsistently across the NEPs, CWA 319, and 5-Star projects because they may interpret
the meaning of  "protection  and restoration" differently; (2)  acreage amounts may be
miscalculated or incorrectly  reported, and (3) acreage may be double-counted i.e., the
same  parcel may also be counted more than one partner,  or the same  parcel may be
counted more than once because it has been restored several times over a period of years.
Also habitat restored, improved, and  protected may not directly correlate to  overall
improvements in the health of that habitat (particularly in the year of reporting); rather,
habitat acreage protected and restored is only one indicator of habitat health and of on-
the-ground progress made by the NEPs.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved  Data or Systems:  Reporting in FY 2007 through  FY 2009 did not
indicate that any improvements to any of the databases associated with these measures
were needed.

References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by each NEP, 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_keep/estuaries/pivot/habitat/hab_fr.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

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.

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound

-------
   •   Percent of goal  achieved in reducing  trade-equalized  (TE) point source
       nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound from the 1999 baseline of 59,146
       TE Ibs/day.

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  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.

-------
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.

Error Estimate:  There may be errors of omission, in classification, documentation 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.  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
PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound

•  Percent of goal achieved in  restoring, protecting or  enhancing 240  acres  of
   coastal habitat from the 2008 baseline of 1,199 acres [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.

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 have been 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 has developed a new data system to report
and track habitat restoration data from the LISS.  This  database is publicly available on
the                     LISS                     website                      at
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitarestoration/projects/Search.aspx.         The
database provides information about completed and potential habitat restoration projects:
Site Name, Project Title, Town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat Type, Targeted
Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration Technique, Acres, Miles,
Map Images, Other Embedded Documents, Project Status ,  Funding  Sources, Project
Partners, Project Completed, Completion Date.  The site locations are also  mapped  to
highlight where these projects are located in the LISS  study area.

An on-line reporting system—NEPORT— has been developed for the NEPs' use that
assists 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 EPA's
wetlands net gain goal.

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.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htmfeeports. The database of habitat
restoration projects is publicly available on the  LISS website at
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habiatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Restore and Protect Long Island Sound

    •   Percent  of goal achieved in  reopening  50  river  and  stream  miles to
       diadromous fish passage from the 2008 baseline of 124 miles  [Long Island
       Sound]

Performance Database:  The LISS has developed a new data system to report and track
habitat restoration data from the LISS. The database is publically available on the LISS
website  at  http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habiatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx.
The database provides information about completed and potential  habitat  restoration
projects:  Site Name, Project Title, town, Project Description, Water Body, Habitat Type,
Targeted Fish Species, Cause of Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration Technique, Acres,
Miles,  Map Images,  Other Embedded Documents, Project  Status, Funding  Sources,
Project Partners, Project Completed,  Completion Date.  The site  locations  are  also
mapped to highlight where these projects are located in the LISS study area.

-------
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.

 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 additional miles of riverine migratory  corridor.  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. Each fish passage project is field verified.

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 offish
passage or the use of the upstream habitat.

Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.

New/Improved  Data Systems: As discussed in the performance database section, the
LISS has developed a new data system to report and track habitat restoration data from
the LISS.  The database is  publically available on the LISS website at
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitatrestoration/projects/Search.aspx
The database provides information about  completed and potential  habitat  restoration
projects:  Site Name, Project Title, Town, Project  Description, Water  Body,  Habitat
Type, Targeted Fish Species, Cause of  Degradation, HRI Goal, Restoration Technique
Acres,  Miles, Map Images,  Other Embedded Documents,  Project Status,  Funding
Sources, Project  Partners, Project Completed Date.  The site locations are also mapped to
highlight where these projects are located in the LISS  study area.

-------
References: Long Island Sound Study,  Sound Health 2008  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 2012 Performance Measure: Improve the Health of the  Great Lakes

    •   Cumulative percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations  of
       PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples

Performance Database:  Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP)  ^see reference #1  below).  This 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.  It began with the collection of data in Lake Michigan in 1972 and the
additional lakes  were added  in 1976.  In  FY2012, the database will  contain quality
reviewed field data from fish collected in 2010 and all quality reviewed analytical data
for fish collected between 1972 and 2010. Samples collected  in 2010 are expected to be
able to be available for reporting in 2012. Data are reported on a calendar year basis.

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 monitors the potential  exposure to contaminant concentrations for
wildlife.

The GLFMP 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.   It 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 has  unique environments  with distinct growth rates, food webs, and
chemical integrity. For this  reason,  a direct comparison of annual concentrations between
each lake and  sub-basin is not appropriate.  However, a cumulative basin-wide percent
long-term trend  can be determined  on  all years  data using an exponential decrease
function, starting with 2000 data as the baseline.  The variability in the data caused by
the intra-lake uniqueness of each lake trout (and walleye) community confounds trend

-------
analyses on shorter timeframes. 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 long-term cumulative percent decrease is calculated using the
rate constant  of the best exponential fit line and the total number of years  elapsed since
2000.  Cumulative percent decline equals l-eA[(-rate constant)(# of years  elapsed since
2000)].  The  year 2000 is selected as the baseline for this measure  in the Action Plan to
illustrate  a more  relevant  measurable change  on an  annual  basis  in the  long-term
cumulative percent decline.  The year  2000 is also more representative of the current
environmental condition in the Great  Lakes, but does not  provide enough  statistical
significance to determine long-term trends from.  The calculated cumulative  percent
decrease can  then be compared to the reduction target to determine if it has been met.
GLNPO rounds the calculated value to the nearest whole percentage for reporting and
comparison purposes

QA/QC Procedures:  GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place2
(see reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited  every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.  The
Quality Assurance (QA) plan that supports the analytical portion of the fish contaminant
program is approved and available online3 (see reference #3 below).  The revised draft
field sampling Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and draft Quality Management
Plan was approved by the GLNPO QA Officer in July 2008
(http://epa.gov/greatlakes/monitoring/fish/reports/quality.pdf).

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 was held on December 11-12,  2007.  This peer review assisted in
providing  a data quality objective and a recommendation to consider dropping the game
fish fillet element of the program.

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.

1.  " The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A Technical and Scientific Model For
   Interstate Environmental Monitoring:' September,  1990. EPA503/4-90-004.

2.  "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-
   R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/

3.   "Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan for
   Sample Collection Activities'', Great Lakes National Program Office. Available at
   http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_Q APP_082504.pdf

4.  "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
   http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Number of Beneficial  Use Impairments removed within  Areas of Concern.
   Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance Database:  USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) removed  within  the Areas  of
Concern (AOCs) located entirely within the United  States and the AOCs that are shared
by both the United States and Canada. Results through September 2012 will be reported
in 2012.

Data Source:  Internal tracking and communications with Great Lakes States, the US
Department of State and the International Joint Commission (DC).

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.  There
were once a total of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern: 26 located entirely within the
United States; 12 located wholly within Canada; and 5 shared by both countries.  There
were thus 31 United States or Binational Areas of Concern; however, with the de-listing
of the Oswego River AOC in July of 2006, only 30 United States or Binational Areas of
Concern remain. Remedial Action Plans for each of these Areas of Concern address one
or up to 14 beneficial  use impairments associated with these areas. At the end of Fiscal
Year 2006, there was a total identified universe  of 261 beneficial use impairments
reported  in the  United  States or Binational  Areas of  Concern.  This  measure  tracks
cumulative progress against those beneficial use impairments.  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. By  2009, all of the Areas of Concern had developed their
delisting targets and they are now being used to measure progress in delisting 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 maintains tracking for de-listed U.S. or binational Beneficial Use Impairments
in office files.

2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. " EPA905-
R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/.

3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. " Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the
   Great Lakes Basin Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

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 were 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 and cumulative totals on a
calendar  year basis graphically.  These databases are reported approximately one year
after the  completion of work, thus, results from  calendar year 2011 remediation will be
reported in FY 2012.

Data Source:  GLNPO collects sediment remediation data  from  various  State  and
Federal project  managers across the Great Lakes region, who conduct and coordinate
contaminated sediments  work, including appropriately  characterizing and  managing
navigational dredging of contaminated sediments. 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:  GLNPO began tracking sediment remediation
actions in the Great Lakes  Basin in 1997. At that time, GLNPO's "best  guess" of the
total  number of cubic yards that required  remediation in the Great Lakes AOCs was 40
million.   In  2004, the U.S. Policy Committee tasked  the Great  Lakes States  with
establishing  a more comprehensive list of sites requiring remediation in the entire Great
Lakes Basin (AOCs and non-AOCs), using best professional judgment to estimate the
sediment volumes to  be remediated.  Using this list  of estimated sediment remediation

-------
needs created  by Great Lakes States in 2004,  and sediment remediation  estimates
reported by Project Managers for calendar years 1997 through 2004, GLNPO  estimated
the 1997 baseline, or "universe," for contaminated  sediments requiring remediation to be
46.5 million cubic yards.

The data collected to track sediment remediation in the Great Lakes  show the amount of
sediment remediated (removed, capped, undergoing  natural  recovery, or 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 totals.  For reporting purposes, the
yearly  volume  total is rounded to  the nearest  one thousand  cubic  yards  and the
cumulative volume total is rounded to the nearest one hundred thousand cubic yards.

QA/QC Procedures:   GLNPO relies on the individual government/agency  project
managers to provide information on whether an approved QAPP was in place during
remediation of contaminated sediment.  This information is used to decide if the  data
provided  by the project manager are  reliable for GLNPO reporting purposes.  If an
approved QAPP  was not used,  sediment data would not  likely be reported by GLNPO,
unless  GLNPO finds that alternative information is available that provides  sufficient
quality documentation for the project and associated data.  This approach allows GLNPO
to use best professional judgment and flexibility in reporting data from any cases where
there was not a QAPP, but (a) the remedial action  is  noteworthy and (b) the project was
conducted by recognized entities using widely accepted best practices and  operating
procedures.

The tracking  database houses  information  on  the calculated  amount of  sediment
remediated at individual sites as provided by the project  managers.  The individual site
project managers are responsible for completing the  data request forms, reviewing draft
figures to verify that the GLNPO project manager  transferred the  data correctly, and
providing any updated or improved estimates.  It is GLNPO's responsibility to determine
if the data are usable based upon the information sheet provided by the project managers.
GLNPO does not attempt to verify mass and volume estimates due  to the variability in
how to calculate them.  GLNPO ensures that the estimates provided make sense for the
site, and  that all estimates are reported in the same units.  GLNPO management and
Sediment Team members review the  data, in the  graphic and matrix formats, prior to
reporting.  GLNPO's Sediment Team works closely with partners and has confidence in
those who provide data for  the summary statistics.  This familiarity with partners and
general knowledge of ongoing projects allows GLNPO management to detect mistakes or
questionable data.

Data Quality Review:  The data, in both the graphic and matrix formats, are reviewed by
individual project managers, GLNPO's Sediment Team, and management prior to being
released.   Data quality  review procedures are outlined in the  QAPP referenced below.
GLNPO's Quality Management System  has  been given "outstanding" evaluations in
previous peer and management reviews. (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 qualitative data since a specific error estimate is not able to be calculated.

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, June 2008.

2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix''. Unpublished - in Great Lakes
National Program Office files.

3.  Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Graphics." 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

6.   "Indicator 3:  Sediment Contamination." Unpublished - in Great Lakes National
Program Office files.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Cost per  cubic  yard of contaminated  sediments  remediated  (cumulative)
   Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

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 generally  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  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 an
ongoing draft of a 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.

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 2012  Performance Measure:

-------
•  Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes where all management actions
   necessary for delisting have been implemented (cumulative). Improve the Health
   of the Great Lakes

Performance Database:   USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative number of management actions (including sediment remediation and habitat
restoration) that take place to achieve beneficial use impairment (BUI) targets  at the
Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). Results through September 2012 will be reported
in 2012.

Data Source:  Internal  tracking and communications with  Great Lakes States, the
relevant community groups at the AOCs, other interested groups, the US Department of
State and the International Joint Commission (IJC).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Restoration of U.S.  or Binational AOCs will
ultimately be measured by the removal of all BUIs, leading to de-listing of all of the U.S.
or Binational AOCs  by  2025. There were  once a  total of 43 Great Lakes AOCs: 26
located entirely within the United States; 12  located wholly within Canada;  and 5 shared
by both countries. There were thus 31 United States or Binational AOCs; however, with
the de-listing of the Oswego River AOC in July of 2006, 30 United States or Binational
AOCs remain.  Remedial Action Plans (RAPS) for each of these AOCs address  one or up
to 14 BUIs associated with these areas.

This measure tracks the number of reasonable  and realistic management actions that are
believed  to be necessary  to show cumulative  progress to  remove  those  BUIs.
Implementation of all management actions  necessary for delisting is deemed to have
occurred  at the time those actions  have commenced.  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 AOCs 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. By 2009, all of the National and Binational AOCs had developed
their delisting targets and they are now being used to measure progress in delisting BUIs.
Along with these targets, the  respective AOCs and the  States have developed, or are
developing a  Stage 2 RAP or an equivalent  document that outlines the reasonable and
realistic management actions that could be taken to delist the relevant BUIs and, hence,
the AOC.  After all BUIs in an AOC are delisted, the entire  Area of Concern can be
delisted.  Reasonable and realistic management actions refer to  the set of local, state and
federal actions that are believed to be taken  to remove the impairment.  These actions
may not result in the immediate delisting of a set of BUIs but these actions are expected
to remove the contaminant threat that will allow environmental conditions to  improve
over time which will lead to eventual delisting of the AOC.

QA/QC Procedures:  GLNPO has an approved  Quality Management System  in place
(see reference #2 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order and is
audited every 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 maintains tracking for de-listed U.S. or binational Beneficial Use Impairments
in office files.

2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. " EPA905-
R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008.  http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/

3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006. " Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf

4. Compilation of "Stage 1 and 2 Remedial Action Plans" and "Delisting Targets for
Areas of Concern" for 25 National 5 Binational AOCs. Various approval dates and
documents are located at the respective local, state and federal office.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

-------
•  Number of nonnative species newly detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
   Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance  Database:  Great Lakes  Aquatic Nonindigenous  Species  Information
System  (GLANSIS). GLANSIS functions as a Great Lakes specific node of the USGS
Nonidigenous  Aquatic  Species (NAS)  national  database. Information  entered  for
GLANSIS  automatically appears in NAS.  GLANSIS provides targeted access to  the
information - especially collection records - for established Great Lakes nonindigenous
species in the NAS Database.

Data Source:  Verified  observations  of new species  by Great Lakes surveillance and
researchers agencies and institutions, as subsequently subjected to review as  described in
QA/QC procedures (below).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Great Lakes have a long history of aquatic
nonindigenous species (ANS)  introductions  - both  intentional and unintentional.  A
number of ongoing federal programs are working to reduce the rate of introductions. The
increased effort to address invasive species through GLRI funding will reduce the rate of
introductions. During the ten-year period prior to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
(2000-2009), thirteen new invasive species were discovered within the Great Lakes. This
is a baseline rate of invasion of 1.3 species per year. Changes in rate will be assessed by
extending this cumulative average into the time period of the GLRI (2000-present).

This methodology assumes that the detection of invasive species in the environment
correlates with actual invasion rates.  It is recognized that there can be  lag  time  in
discovery (discussed in more detail under error estimate). This performance measure also
assumes that rate of detection is directly reflective of the GLRI effort. Because the Great
lakes ecosystem receives the input of a number of vectors that introduce invasive species
—  including,  live  organisms  in  commerce,  canals/waterways, ballast  water,  and
recreational and  resource users activities - the results of the GLRI effort cannot be
measured independently from the suite of other ongoing programs at work  in the Great
Lakes.

This performance measure is suitable for providing a basic pulse toward the long-term
goal of establishing  a  no-tolerance  policy  for new introductions.  Invasive  species
programs are in the early stages of development and some regulatory and programmatic
gaps remain.

QA/QC Procedures:  The list of aquatic nonindigenous species found via GLANSIS is
subject to constant revision. Based on these criteria:

Geographic criterion: Only species which are established in the Great Lakes  basin below
the ordinary high water  mark — including connecting channels, wetlands and waters
ordinarily attached to the Lakes — are included in the GLANSIS database. Species which
have invaded  inland lakes  within the  Great Lakes basin but not meeting the above
geographic criterion are not included in the database.

-------
Aquatic  criterion: GLANSIS includes  only aquatic  species.  USDA wetland  indicator
status is used as a guideline for determining whether wetland plants should be included in
the list -  OBL, FACW and FAC wetland plants are included in this list as aquatic; FACU
and UPL plants are not.

Nonindigenous criterion: The species included  in  GLANSIS are those  which  are
considered nonindigenous within the  Great  Lakes basin according to  the  following
definitions and criteria (based on Ricciardi 2006): the species appeared suddenly and had
not been recorded in the basin previously; it  subsequently spreads within the basin; its
distribution in the basin is restricted compared with native species;  its global distribution
is anomalously disjunct (i.e.  contains  widely scattered and isolated populations);  its
global distribution is associated with human  vectors of dispersal;  the basin is isolated
from regions possessing the most genetically and morphologically similar species.

Cryptogenic  species are those species that cannot  be verified  as  either  native  or
introduced (after Carlton, 1996). Species that have been identified as cryptogenic  are
generally not listed, but are being considered for inclusion in a separate list or in the main
GLANSIS list with an appropriate identifier.

Species which  have expanded their ranges within the basin (e.g., those native to Lake
Ontario which have  invaded  Lake Superior) are  not systematically included in the main
GLANSIS list but are being considered for inclusion in a separate list or  in  the main
GLANSIS list with an appropriate identifier. The only species presently  included in
GLANSIS that violates the criterion of no previous evolutionary  history in the Great
Lakes basin is the sea lamprey.

Note:  Although  widely used, the term  'invasive'  is  vague  and subject to widely
inconsistent usage. Biologically it is often related to  the relative ability of  a species to
spread and establish in new areas, while legislatively and politically  it  is  used  to
characterize a nonindigenous species  "whose introduction does  or is likely  to cause
economic or environmental harm or harm to human  health" (Executive Order 13112,
February 1999). Thus, the term 'invasive' has multiple meanings and requires a subjective
judgment.  We  avoid using the term 'invasive', but may use the word 'invader', in  the
context that  a  nonindigenous species  that  has  successfully established  a  reproducing
population is an 'invader'. 'Exotic' is a commonly used synonym for 'nonindigenous'.

Established criterion: A nonindigenous species is considered  established if it has  a
reproducing population within the basin, as inferred from multiple discoveries of adult
and juvenile life stages  over at  least two consecutive years. Given that successful
establishment may require multiple introductions, species are excluded if their records of
discoveries are  based  on  only one   or  a  few non-reproducing individuals whose
occurrence may reflect merely transient  species or unsuccessful invasions.

-------
Data Quality  Review:     Data management or this performance  measure  is  the
responsibility of NOAA, who implements quality review procedures in accordance with
their policies.

Data Limitations:  The  number  of Great  Lakes  aquatic  nonindigenous  species
documented in GLANSIS  is to be interpreted as a minimum. Identification depends on
discovery and verification,  which is, in turn, dependent on sampling effort.

Error Estimate:   The GLRI effort will increase surveillance of the  Great Lakes  for
invasive  species.  Enhanced monitoring  will  potentially  result in the discovery of
organisms that were established prior to GLRI but were not detected by lower levels of
sampling. This problem of lag time  is well known in ecology, but limited studies have
been  performed in the  Great Lakes.  Recent publications (Grigorovich 2008, Trebitz
2009) have documented how increased sampling in Duluth Harbor discovered previously
undocumented species. It  is unknown when they were first introduced and would  not
have been discovered except for the intense sampling design. In this case, they will be
reported  as  "discovered" in 2006, which is the year of sampling. It  is expected that
similar cases will occur as increase  sampling is done in other high-risk harbors in  the
Great Lakes. The problem of lag time  will decrease once comprehensive prevention
programs are in place and operating over time. This will to reduce the uncertainty due to
lag-time and make the "rate of discovery" statistic more likely to reflect the actual rate of
invasion.

New/Improved Data or Systems: NA

References:

1.  Bryan, M.B, D. Zalinski, B. Filcek, S. Libants, W. Li, and K.T. Scribner. 2005.
   Patterns of invasion and colonization of the sea lamprey. Molecular Ecology
   14:3757-3773

2.  Carlton J.T.  1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653-55

3.  Lawrie, A. H. 1970. The sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Transactions of the
   American Fisheries Society 99:766-775.

4.  Mills EL, Leach JH, Carlton JT, Secor CL.  1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a
   history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19: 1-54.

5.  Ricciardi A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an "invasional
   meltdown" occurring in the Great Lakes? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 2513-2525.

6.  Ricciardi A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to
   changes in vector activity. Divers. Distrib. 12, 425-433.

-------
7.  Smith, B. R., and J. J. Tibbies. 1980. Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in Lakes
   Huron, Michigan, and Superior: history of invasion and control, 1936-78. Canadian
   Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37(11):1780-1801.

8.  Bailey, R.M., and G.R. Smith. 1981. Origin and geography of the fish fauna of the
   Laurentian Great Lakes basin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
   National Research Council Canada vol:38 iss:12 pgs: 1539-1561

9.  Daniels, R. A. 2001. Untested assumptions: the role of canals in the dispersal of sea
   lamprey, alewife, and other fishes in the eastern United States. Env. Biol. of Fishes.
   vol:60 pgs:309-329

10. Mandrak, N. E., andE. J. Grossman. 1992. Postglacial dispersal of freshwater fishes
   into Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:2247-2259.

11. Smith, S. H. 1995. Early changes in the fish community of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes
   Fishery Commission Technical Report 60, Ann Arbor.

12. Grigorovich , LA. 2008. The Quagga Mussel Invades the Lake Superior Basin.
   Journal of Great Lakes Research. 34:342-350

13. Trebitz A.S. et al (2009) Exploiting habitat and gear patterns for efficient detection of
   rare and non-native benthos and fish in Great Lakes coastal ecosystems. Aquatic
   Invasions, Volume 4, Issue 4: 651-667

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Acres managed for populations of invasive species controlled to a target level.
   (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance Database: GLRI Accountability System database.

Data Source:  As a condition of GLRI Interagency Agreements,  Federal Agencies are
required to track performance and submit data to USEPA on this measure including work
performed via subsequent contracting and granting arrangements.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  The  cumulative total number acres will be
calculated by  simple  summation using the GLRI  Accountability System database
(GLAS).
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved  Quality Management System in place
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: Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed
and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.

Data Limitations: None known.

-------
Error Estimate: Statistics developed through the use of the Great Lakes Accountability
System (GLAS) rely on the inputted data of Federal agencies and grant recipients. There
may be errors in classification, georeferencing, input accuracy, as well as data omissions.
Statistics from the GLAS system reflect a point in time. Although data will be assessed
on a project by project  basis for accuracy, a degree of error is to  be  expected. This
innovative system for tracking Great Lakes-wide activities will be refined over time if
systematic errors are detected through project assessments.

New/Improved Data or  Systems: NA

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Number multi-agency rapid response plans established, mock exercises to
   practice responses carried out under those plans, and/or actual response actions.
   (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance Database: GLRI Accountability System database.

Data Source:  As a condition of GLRI Interagency Agreements, Federal Agencies are
required to track performance and submit data to USEPA on this measure including work
performed via subsequent contracting and granting arrangements.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  The cumulative total number plans developed
and exercises  conduced  will be  calculated by  simple  summation  using the  GLRI
Accountability System  database (GLAS).    QA/QC  Procedures:   GLNPO  has an
approved Quality Management System in place 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:   Quality  documentation  for this measure  has  not  yet been
reviewed and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.

Data Limitations: None known.

Error Estimate: Error Estimate: Statistics developed through the use  of the Great Lakes
Accountability System (GLAS) rely on the inputted data of Federal agencies  and grant
recipients. There may be errors in classification, georeferencing, input accuracy,  as well
as data omissions. Statistics from the GLAS system reflect a point in time. Although data
will be assessed on  a project by project basis for accuracy,  a degree of error is to be
expected. This innovative system for tracking Great Lakes-wide activities will be refined
over time if systematic errors are detected through project assessments.

New/Improved Data or  Systems: NA

-------
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•   Five year average annual loadings of soluble reactive phosphorus (metric tons
    per year) from tributaries draining targeted watersheds. Improve the Health of
    the Great Lakes

Performance Database:    Loadings information will be incorporated into the standard
USGS database, NWIS.

Data Source:   Various State, Federal,  and  local agencies collect  soluble reactive
phosphorus or functionally equivalent dissolved phosphorus data across the Great Lakes
region. Water-quality data are stored in various databases: STORET (EPA  data base),
NWIS (USGS data  base), or those of individual State and local agencies. Note: not all
State and local agencies incorporate their  data into Federal databases. Note: not all
agencies  collect soluble reactive phosphorus data, some collect only total  phosphorus
data.  Agencies monitoring  the rivers of interest collect their data in accordance with
approved standard procedures.  Streamflow data for the rivers  of interest are collected by
the USGS. All streamflow data are stored in the  standard  USGS database, NWIS.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  Water-quality data and streamflow data will
be collected in accordance with approved standard procedures of the USEPA or USGS.
These data will then be used to compute annual loads of soluble reactive phosphorus in
each river. Loads will be computed by means of one of two different approaches: a rating
curve/regression  approach method such as Estimate (Cohn,  et al.  1989)  or Fluxmaster
(Schwarz  et al. 2006); or  the Beale's ratio estimator  approach (Beale, 1962). Other
general assumptions include:
    1.  Dissolved phosphorus is similar to soluble reactive phosphorus and it may be used
       if soluble reactive phosphorus is  not monitored in each  river.
    2.  The  soluble  reactive phosphorus concentrations collected represent conditions
       over the entire ranges of flows experienced in each year.
    3.  Annual load  estimation approaches, with their  inherent  errors, can be used  to
       describe small changes in 5-year average loads.
    4.  Loads computed for a five-year period  represent the true average of hydrologic
       conditions that typically have an 11  to  13 year cycle  resulting from interannual
       changes in hydrology.

QA/QC Procedures: Streamflow will be collected by the USGS and will follow all
standard QA/QC procedures outlined in  U.S. Geological  Survey by Rantz (1982) and
Mueller and Wagner (2009). Water-quality data  will be collected by Federal, State, and
local agencies following their specified protocols in accordance with standard USEPA
approved protocols.  Each agency will follow specified field and laboratory QA/QC
procedures consisting of blanks, replicates, and spikes. Additionally, data analyses must
be performed by laboratories that have gone through a recognized laboratory
evaluation/accreditation process including participation in ongoing blind testing programs
to provide performance data. Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been
reviewed and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.

-------
Data-Quality  Review:   Annual load  data will be  reviewed  by individual project
managers  and published  in  annual  reports.  Specific data-quality  review procedures
depend on who is going to compute the loads and how the loads are computed.

Data Limitations: Annual loads represent an integration of current and historical land
use practices  and  climatic conditions during each year. Therefore, changes in the five
year average loads may not be caused by changes in practices applied in the watershed.

Error  Estimate:   Stream flow and  water-quality  data are incorporated into  load
computation programs. The load computation program will be used to construct  95%
confidence limits  on  each annual load. It is assumed that these  errors incorporate all
sampling and estimation errors.

New/Improved Data or Systems: None.

References:
1.  Beale,  E.M.L.  1962. Some uses of computers in operational research.  Industrielle
   Organisation 31:51-52.

2.  Cohn,  T.A., L.L DeLong, EJ. Gilroy, R.M. Hirsch, and D.E Wells. 1989. Estimating
   Constituent Loads. Water Resources Research, 25(5), pp. 937-942.

3.  Rantz,  S.E. 1982.  Measurement and computation of streamflow; Volume  1,
   measurement of stage and discharge; Volume 2, computation of discharge, US
   Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper vol. 2175, U.S.  Geological Survey,
   Washington, D.C..
4.  Mueller, D.S.,  and Wagner, C.R., 2009, Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler
   current profilers from a moving boat: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques  and
   Methods 3A-22, 72 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/tm3a22)

5.  Schwarz, G.E., Hoos, A.B., Alexander, R.B., and Smith, R.A., 2006, SPARROW-
   MOD:  user documentation for the SPARROW surface water-quality model: U.S.
   Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, section B, Surface water,
   chapter 3 (6-B3).
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Acres in Great Lakes watershed with USDA conservation practices implemented
   to reduce erosion, nutrients and/or pesticide loading. Improve the Health of the
   Great Lakes

Performance Database:  USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service's National
Conservation Planning Database and Performance Results System.

-------
Data Source:  The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides financial
and  technical  assistance to  private landowners and producers throughout the United
States through one-on-one assistance at the farm level.  The results of that assistance are
documented at the  field office level using the NRCS  National Conservation Planning
Database (NCP).  The Performance Results System (PRS) reports performance in various
ways based on established performance measure business definitions.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Natural Resources Conservation Service staff
and  conservation  partners enter geo-located  conservation planning  and application
information  into  the  NCP daily.   These data  are the result of landowner/producer
planning  decisions  and in-field  certification  of  applied  conservation  practices.
Certification  occurs  only after an  applied  practice  meets  NRCS  standards and
specifications.  Conservation planning is the process  through which decision-makers,
land owners or producers, voluntarily  agree  to a recommended series of conservation
practices or systems designed to address the natural resource concern, such as sheet and
rill or gully erosion, surface or subsurface nutrient loading or animal agriculture.  Other
concerns,  such as wildlife habitat and sustainable agriculture, may also be addressed.
Conservation planning and application documentation warehoused in the NCP are date-
stamped,  geo-referenced and  linked  to  an  employee  ID,  enabling  detailed  quality-
assurance reviews.  Periodic in field reviews (spot checks) are conducted to  assess the
accuracy of reported field data.

QA/QC Procedures:  Conservation planning and application is reported  through the
Performance Results System (PRS) using  data stored in the NCP. Numerous data quality
mechanisms within PRS ensure the completeness of  each performance record  entry.
Each performance record must adhere to  a set of quality assurance requirements during
the upload process to  be credited towards Agency performance. Conservation planning
and application documentation is entered into the NCP by field office personnel.  Field
staffs are trained and  skilled in conservation planning and application suited to the local
resource  conditions.  The information  used to develop conservation plans is obtained
from on-site resource evaluation,  observation,  and measurement.  Practices  applied
according to  the  conservation  plan  are certified  as meeting NRCS standards and
specifications. These  standards are specific to the practice and ensure the application will
address the identified  resource concern.  Quality Assurance processes are in place  at the
field, area, state and national level to ensure data entry into the NCP  is accurate. Detailed
QA/QC is performed on all data entries quarterly.

Data Quality Review:  Beginning FY 2009 quarterly detailed QA/QC based field level
queries were performed on all entered  data.  As a result, confidence in entered data is
good.  Data entry error checking and automated (real time) QA/QC  is in development to
improve the QA/QC  process,  capture  potential errors at the point of data entry, and
increase  staff field time. Quality  documentation for this  measure has not yet been
reviewed and approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.

Data Limitations: Conservation planning and application performance is year and
program  specific.  A  series of integrated conservation practices may be applied to the

-------
same land unit using one or more available programs over a series of years.  In addition, a
land unit or farm operation may be replanned due to a significant change in the operation
or change in owner/operator.  For  these reasons the cumulative acreage  planned  or
applied over multiple years may not reflect unique acres.

Error Estimate: Initial QA/QC data queries at the national level have shown less than a
five percent error rate.  A specific error estimate is not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Data entry error checking and automated (real time)
QA/QC is in development to improve the QA/QC process,  capture potential errors at the
point of data entry, and increase staff field time.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  % of populations of native aquatic non-threatened and endangered species self-
   sustaining in the wild, (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance Database: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Fisheries
Information System (FIS), a component of the Environmental Conservation Online
System (ECOS) (see reference below). Data on aquatic taxa are compiled annually to
meet performance reporting and budgetary requirements to the Department of the
Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress.

Data Source:  The  Service's Fisheries Program is the principal  source of data for the
FIS.  Cooperating organizations include other federal agencies, states,  Tribes, and non-
governmental partners that assist with population assessment and monitoring.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The FIS Populations Module provides
information on what is known about populations of aquatic species (i.e.,  status, trend,
geographic location, management plans, etc.) and  has broad scientific utility.  Population
data are updated annually in FIS to reflect most recent population and habitat assessment
information, and are reported on an annual basis (September of the fiscal year) to the
Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress in the
Service's Operational Plan.

QA/QC Procedures:   Population data are  collected by sources  identified above and
entered into  the web-based FIS program by Service field office staff. Regional data are
compiled and submitted to headquarters program staff for review and approval.

Data Quality Review:  The Service  has approved data quality management practices in
place. Data in FIS are open for examination by internal and external audit. The Fisheries
Program received an "Effective" assessment rating as a result of the Program Assessment
Rating  Tool (PART)  in  2006.     The  Fisheries  Program  continues  to  implement
recommendations as identified in the  PART Improvement Plan and complies with agency
quality standards.  Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and
approved through GLNPO's Quality Program.

-------
Data Limitations:   Outcome-level performance measures as documented through the
FIS Populations Module are critical connections between field-based conservation action
and regional and national-level funding and accountability. Completeness and accuracy
of information in the module is dependent on Service biologists entering the data.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems: The FIS modules are continually being reviewed and
updated to reflect new scientific information and changing reporting needs.  The online
sytem will eventually provide public access to the population information.

References:
Environmental Conservation Online System., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do, http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/about.do

1. Fisheries Information System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Fisheries
   and Habitat Conservation, Arlington, VA. 2006
   http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwco/pdfs/factsheets/FIS.pdf

2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Assessment Rating Tool Results, Fisheries
   Program 2006.  http://www.fws.gov/Planning/Documents/PART/Fisheries.pdf

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Number of species delisted due to recovery. Improve the Health of the Great
   Lakes

Performance Database:  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Threatened and
Endanger Species System (TESS) and Recovery Online Activity Reporting system
(ROAR), both components of the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System
(ECOS) (see reference below).  Databases provide current reports of all federally listed
animals and plants, as well as recovery plan information (i.e., plan access, action status,
etc.)

Data Source: The Service's Endangered Species Program is the principal source of data.
Cooperating organizations include other federal agencies, states, Tribes, and non-
governmental partners that assist implementation of recovery actions.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Before a plant or animal species can receive
protection under the Endangered Species Act, it must first be placed on the Federal list of
endangered and threatened wildlife and plants.  To delist a species, the Service is legally
required to determine that threats have been eliminated or controlled, based on several
factors including population sizes and trends and the stability of habitat quality and
quantity.

-------
The number of species delisted are reported annyally in ECOS (September of the fiscal
year) and to the Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget, and
Congress in the Service's Operational Plan. The numbers of species delisted reported as
a cumulative metric.  Delisting determinations are based on several complex factors (see
reference), including annual and cumulative conservation and recovery actions reported
in the ECOS system.

QA/QC Procedures:
The Service's listing program follows a strict legal process to determine whether to list or
delist a species, depending on the degree of threat it faces.
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/listing.pdf) The Service also maintains a list
of plant and animals native to the United States that are candidates or proposed for
possible addition to the Federal list. All of the Service's actions, from proposals to
listings to removals ("delisting") are announced through the Federal Register
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/delisting.pdf).

Data Limitations: Outcome-level performance measures as documented through the
TESS and ROAR modules in ECOS are critical  connections between field-based
conservation action and regional and national-level funding and accountability.
Completeness and accuracy of information in the modules are dependent on Service
biologists entering the data.

Error Estimate:  None

New/Improved Data or Systems: None

References:
Environmental Conservation Outline System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
http://ecos.fws.gOv/ecos/indexPublic.do.http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/about.do

•   Threatened and Endangered Species System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/
•   Recovery Online Activity Reporting System,  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    https://ecos.fws.gov/roar/pub/ConfigureRecActionReport.do?path=ROAR%20Custo
    m%20Queries.Public%20Actions%20AdHoc

    Listing a Species, Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Endangered Species Program,  July 2009
    http://www.fws.gov/endangered /factsheets/listing.pdf

    Delisting a Species, Section of the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Endangered Species Program,  July 2009
    http://www.fws.gov/endangered/factsheets/delisting.pdf

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Assessment Rating Tool Results, Endangered
    Species Program 2005.

-------
   http://www.fws.gov/Planning/Documents/PART/Endangered%20Species.pdf
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•  Number of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored
   and enhanced, (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance Database: EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will
track the cumulative total of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected,
restored and enhanced at the end of each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal Year 2010.

Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with the following federal agencies:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NFS), U.S.
Geological Service (USGS), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), U.S.D.A. Forest
Service (FS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Each agency mentioned above will provide
information about cumulative wetlands and wetland-associated upland acres protected,
restored and enhanced by agency staff, grantees, and contractors. Information will be
input to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Accountability Database (GLAS).
GLNPO will compile and distill information into a yearly GLRI report.

QA/QC Procedures
GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place 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
Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through
GLNPO's Quality Program.

Data Limitations: Tracking is dependent on each agency's staff, grant and contract
reporting requirements as well as accurate reporting or project accomplishments by
project managers.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Accountability
System

References

-------
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for cumulative total
of acres of wetlands and wetland-associated uplands protected, restored and enhanced.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•   Number of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and
    enhanced, (cumulative) Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance Database: EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and
enhanced at the end of each Fiscal Year beginning in Fiscal Year 2010.

Data Source: Internal tracking and communications with the following federal agencies:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), National Park Service (NFS), U.S.
Geological Service (USGS), Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), U.S.D.A. Forest
Service (FS), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA).

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability
Each agency mentioned above will provide information about cumulative coastal, upland,
and island habitats acres protected, restored and enhanced by agency staff, grantees, and
contractors. Information will be input to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
Accountability Database (GLAS). GLNPO will compile and distill information into a
yearly GLRI report.

QA/QC Procedures
GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place 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
Quality documentation for this measure has not yet been reviewed and approved through
GLNPO's Quality Program.

Data Limitations: Tracking is dependent on each agency's staff, grant and contract
reporting requirements as well as accurate reporting or project accomplishments by
project managers.

Error Estimate: None

New/Improved Data or Systems: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Accountability
System

References

-------
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for cumulative total
of acres of coastal, upland, and island habitats protected, restored and enhanced.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•   Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing water
    pollution and protecting aquatic systems Improve the Health of the Great Lakes

Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will
collect and track the eight (8) components of the index and publish the performance
results as part of annual reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and as online reporting of GLNPO's monitoring program,
 .  Extensive databases for the indicator
components are maintained by GLNPO (phosphorus concentrations, contaminated
sediments, benthic health, fish tissue contamination), by binational agreement with
Environment Canada (air toxics deposition), and by local authorities who provide data to
the  USEPA (drinking water quality, beach closures). A binational team of scientists and
natural resource managers is working to establish a long term monitoring program to
determine extent and quality of coastal wetlands.

Data Source: Data for the index components are tracked internally and generally
reported through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process. The
document, "State of the Great Lakes 2009 - A Technical Report" presents detailed
indicator reports prepared by primary authors, including listings of data sources.
Depending on the indicators, data sources may include U.S. and Canadian federal
agencies, state and provincial agencies, municipalities, research reports and published
scientific literature. Information from the following indicators is used to evaluate the
Index components:

[1]  Coastal Wetlands group of indicators:
       Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
       Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
       Coastal Wetland Bird Community Diversity and Abundance
       Coastal Wetland Area by Type
       Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
[2]  Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
[3]  Area of Concern Sediment Contamination (This component is not included in SOLEC.
Information from reports of contaminated sediment remediation is collected by USEPA-
GLNPO and is used by GLNPO to evaluate the contaminated sediment index component
of this Index.)
[4]  Benthic Health group of indicators:
       Hexagenia
       Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp.
[5]  Contaminants in Sport Fish
[6]  Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures[7] Drinking Water Quality
[8]  Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic  Chemicals

-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Index is based on a 40 point scale where
the rating uses select Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal
wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach
closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition), and an indicator for Area of
Concern (AOC) sediment contamination. Each component of the Index is based on a 1 to
5 rating system, where 1 is poor and 5 is good.  Authors use best professional judgment
to assess the overall status of the ecosystem component in relation to established
endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when available.  . To calculate the Index, the data for
each indicator are compared to the evaluation criteria for the numeric,  1 to 5, rating
system. Each of the index components, other than the AOC sediment contamination
component, is included in the broader suite of Great Lakes indicators, which was
developed through an extensive multi-agency process to  satisfy the overall criteria of
necessary, sufficient and feasible. Information on the selection process is in the
document, "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4."

QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in
place^see reference #1 below) that conforms to the USEPA Quality Management Order
and is audited every 3 years in accordance with Federal policy for Quality Management.

The SOLEC process relies on secondary use of data, i.e., data for many of the indicators
are collected, maintained and analyzed by agencies and organizations other than USEPA.
Participating agencies and organizations follow their own QA/QC procedures to assure
high quality data. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed to document
procedures for data assessment and review for the indicators reports prepared for the
State of the Great Lakes 2005 report. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
2004 QAPP." Contaminated sediment remediation information is collected in
conformance with GLNPO's Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary
Support QAPP  (see reference #2 below).

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.

An external Peer Review of SOLEC processes and products was conducted in 2003 by an
international panel of experts familiar with large-scale regional or national  indicator and
reporting systems. Panel findings were generally positive and several recommendations
were made to consider for future SOLEC events and reports. Many of the
recommendations have been implemented, and others are being considered for feasibility.
The final report by the review panel is available online at
http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Peer Review Report" in the SOLEC  2004 section.

A second review of the suite of Great Lakes indicators was conducted by Great Lakes
stakeholders in 2004.  As a direct result of the findings and recommendations from the

-------
participants, several indicators were revised, combined or dropped, and a few others were
added. The indicators were also regrouped to allow the user to more easily identify the
indicators relevant to particular ecosystem components or environmental issues.  The
final report from the review is available online at http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html.
See "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Peer Review Report, Part 2: Stakeholder
Review of the Great Lakes Indicators" in the SOLEC 2004 section.

Data Limitations: Data limitations vary among the indicator components of the Index.
The data are especially good for phosphorus concentrations, fish tissue contamination,
benthic health, and air toxics deposition. The data associated with other components of
the index (coastal wetlands, AOC sediment contamination, beach closures, and drinking
water quality) are more qualitative. Some data are distributed among several sources,
and without an extensive trend line. Limitations for each of the index components are
included in the formal indicator descriptions in the document, "The Great Lakes  Indicator
Suite: Changes and Progress 2004." The data provided in the sediment tracking database
should be used as a tool to track sediment remediation progress at sites across the Great
Lakes. Many of the totals for sediment remediation are estimates provided by project
managers. For specific data uses, individual project managers should be contacted to
provide additional information.

Error Estimate: Error statistics for the Great Lakes Index  have not been quantified.
Each unit of the 40 point scale represents 2.5% of the total, so any unit change in the
assessment of one of the component indicators would result in a change of the index of
that magnitude. The degree of environmental change required to affect an indicator
assessment, however, may be significantly large.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Data continue to be collected by various agencies,
including GLNPO.  Efforts are currently in progress to integrate various Great Lakes
monitoring programs to better meet SOLEC objectives and to increase efficiencies in data
collection and reporting. Documentation regarding SOLEC is available on the Internet
and from GLNPO4 (see reference # 4 below).

References:
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-
R-02-009. Revised and approved May 2008. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/

 2. Quality Assurance Project Plan for "Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project
Summary Support." Unpublished - in Great Lakes National Program Office files, June
2008.

3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006"  Unpublished - in USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office files.

4.  a. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP."  Unpublished.  Prepared
   as part of Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.

-------
   b. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-
   34798-6, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-ll/35-2003E, and
   U.S.

   c. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available
   on CD and online at .

   d. Canada and the United States. "Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical
   Report." ISBN 0-662-34797-8 (CD-Rom), Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario,
   Cat. No. Enl64-l/2003E-MRC (CD-Rom), and U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-003. 2003. Available on CD from U.S. EPA/Great
   Lakes National Program Office, Chicago.  Available online at
   http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html

   e. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005." Environment
   Canada, Burlington, Ontario(Cat No. Enl61-3/0-2005E-PDF) and U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-06-001), 2006 Available
   online  at 

   f. Bertram, Paul and Nancy Stadler-Salt. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
   Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4." Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, and
   U.S. EPA, Chicago. 2000.  Available online at .

   g. Forst, Christina, Paul Bertram and Nancy Stadler-Salt. 2004. The Great Lakes
   Indicator Suite: Changes and Progress  at SOLEC 2004.   Available  online at
   http://binational.net/solec/English/SOLEC%202004/Tagged%20PDFs/Changes_and_
   Progress_Paper_(FULL). pdf

   h. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights,"
   Environment Canada, Burlington,  Ontario (Cat. No. Enl61-3/2007E) and U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-07-002) 2007. Available
   online  at http://binational.net/solec/English/sogl2007highlights_en.pdf.

   i. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2009," Environment
   Canada, Burlington, Ontario (Cat.  No.  Enl61-3/l-2009E-PDF) and U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago (EPA-905-R-09-031) 2009. Available
   online  at http://binational.net/solec/sogl2009_e.html.

   All SOLEC documents, background reports, indicator reports, indicator development
   processes, conference agenda, proceedings and presentations are available online at
   http://epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.html. The documents are sorted by SOLEC year
   and include the State of the Great Lakes reports which are released the following
   calendar year.

FY 2012 Performance Measures:Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem

-------
    •   Percent of goal achieved for implementing nitrogen pollution reduction
       actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase
       5.3 watershed model.
    •   Percent of goal achieved for implementing phosphorus pollution reduction
       actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase
       5.3 watershed model.
    •   Percent of goal achieved for implementing sediment pollution reduction
       actions to achieve final TMDL allocations, as measured through the phase
       5.3 watershed model.
    •   Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of
       agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars to
       implement agricultural BMPs (program assessment efficiency measure)

Performance Database:   Implementation  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  pollution
reduction actions throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, will be  measured through
the phase 5.3 watershed model and expressed as % of goal achieved. The nitrogen goal is
a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) draft  allocation of 203.14 million pounds per
year6 (based on long-term  average hydrology  simulations).  The phosphorus  goal is a
TMDL draft allocation of 12.52 million pounds per year1  (based on long-term average
hydrology simulations). Achieving the Bay TMDL nitrogen and phosphorus allocations
is necessary for  attaining tidal water quality  standards for clarity/submerged aquatic
vegetation, chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen. The Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 5.3
Watershed Model is the tool used to transform calculated wastewater discharge loads
(generally, from  monitored flow and concentration data) to  nitrogen and phosphorus
loads delivered to Chesapeake Bay tidal waters.  The Phase 5.3 Watershed Model is also
employed to integrate the nonpoint source practice  implementation data (submitted by
jurisdictions  for a host of  practices and programs)  and simulate changes  in  delivered
nitrogen and phosphorus loads from  nonpoint  sources.  The simulation removes annual
hydrological variations in order to measure the effectiveness  of practices implemented
and converts the numerous practices, 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 pollution reduction actions throughout the Bay watershed,
will be measured through the phase 5.3 watershed,  model and expressed as % of goal
achieved. The sediment  goal is a TMDL  allocation of 6.45 billion pounds per year
(based  on average  hydrology simulations).   Achieving the  Bay  TMDL  sediment
allocation is  necessary for  attaining tidal water quality standards for clarity/submerged
aquatic vegetation. The phase 5.3 watershed model is employed to integrate the nonpoint
source practice implementation data (submitted by jurisdictions for a host of practices
and programs) and simulate changes in delivered sediment loads from nonpoint sources.
The simulation   removes  annual  hydrological  variations in  order  to  measure  the
6 The TMDL allocations will be finalized December 31, 2010. The EPA Region 3 Administrator has
provided the following draft allocations to the state secretaries for use in developing Watershed
Implementation Plans: 203.14 million pounds of nitrogen; 12.52 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.1-6.7
billion pounds of sediment.

-------
effectiveness of practices implemented and converts the numerous practices, with various
pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the watershed - to a
common currency of sediment reduction.

Data will be reported for calendar years 2009 and 2010 in March 2011 and are expected
on an annual basis after 2010.  Data will be from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of
NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC.

The FY 2012 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results
of the 2011 data collection. We expect to receive the results of the 2011 data collection
in March 2012.

The description of the data and the methods used to interpret, analyze and quality assure
the data will be available from the Bay Tracking and Accountability System (BayTAS),
which will be finalized by 2011.  For more information about the BayTAS, refer to
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/45645_07-20-
10_Presentation_4_l 0929.pdf.

Data  Source:  Annual jurisdictional submissions of both monitored and estimated
wastewater effluent concentrations and flows approved by each jurisdiction as well as
nonpoint source practice data tracked by jurisdictions and reported to the Chesapeake
Bay Program office. Data will be provided via Bay TA S.

Custodians of Source Data:
    •   Wastewater: Ning Zhou, Point Source Data Manager, Virginia Polytechnic
       Institute and  State University, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
    •   Nonpoint Source practices and Watershed Model information:  Jeff Sweeney,
       Nonpoint Source Data Manager, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay
       Program Office

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: A wealth of both general and technical
documents about the watershed model  can be found on the Bay Program's web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169  and on the
Chesapeake Community Modeling website at
http ://ches. communitymodeling. org/model s/CBPhase5/index .php.

The Chesapeake Bay Program phase 5.3 watershed model is the tool used to transform
calculated wastewater discharge loads (generally, from monitored flow and concentration
data) to nutrient loads delivered to Chesapeake Bay tidal waters, upon which the measure
is based.

The phase 5.3 watershed model is also employed to integrate nonpoint source practice
implementation data - submitted by jurisdictions for a host of practices and programs - to
changes in delivered nutrient and sediment loads as well as to assimilate the impacts of
both wastewater and nonpoint source controls and practices.

-------
The watershed model allows scientists to simulate changes in physical, chemical, and
biological processes in a large and complex ecosystem due to changes in human and
animal populations, land uses, or pollution management, so that technically sound
environmental decisions can be made. Monitoring data provides observations in the past
or the present, at discrete times, and at isolated locations while modeling scenarios can be
used to represent the environment under different management regimes in different
temporal and spatial scales.

The   model   simulations  represent   "what-if  management   scenarios,   providing
comparisons among historic and current watershed conditions and a future condition that
would restore water quality and  living resources in the Chesapeake Bay.  So that the
comparisons are relevant, reported nonpoint source loads from the watershed model are
estimates of what would occur in an average hydrology year with a single year's
watershed conditions  (i.e.,  land  uses,  animal  manure  and chemical fertilizer inputs,
human  population,  nonpoint  source  controls/practices,   septic,  and   atmospheric
deposition).  Wastewater loads reflect measured discharges from tracked waste treatment
and  industrial facilities, using the model to account  for  changes  in nutrients  as  the
pollutants move downstream.

QA/QC Procedures:  Procedures for compiling and managing wastewater 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 Coordinator,
       Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).

Procedures for acquiring and managing nonpoint source data at the Chesapeake Bay
Program office are documented in the following EPA-approved Quality Assurance
Project PI an:
   •   "Standard Operating  Procedures  for  Managing  Nonpoint Source  Data  -
       Chesapeake Bay Program" on file  for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance
       Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).

Jurisdictions providing wastewater effluent data and nonpoint source controls and
practices data to the Bay Program office have supplied 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 can be obtained by contacting the Quality Assurance
Coordinator, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).

Data Quality Reviews:
Data and methods used in the watershed model as well as the simulation itself and
loading outputs are continually under external and internal review.  Internal review
mostly involves the Bay Program Water Quality Goal Implementation Team and its
workgroups; the Modeling Team; and special task groups established particularly for peer
review.  Scopes and purposes of these groups and their extensive considerations of the

-------
watershed model as a planning tool can be found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/wq_git_info.aspx?menuitem=47174, and
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/committee_msc_info.aspx.

An external review of the Bay Program's phase 5 watershed model hydrologic calibration
was completed in September 2008 and can be found at
http ://www. chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_51626.pdf

In February, 2008, an external panel assembled by the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the Chesapeake Bay phase 5
watershed model assessing (1) work to date, (2) the model's suitability for making
management decisions at the Bay Watershed and local scales, and (3) potential
enhancements to improve the predictive ability of the next generation of the Chesapeake
Bay watershed models. A report of the review, with specific recommendations, can be
found at the STAC site http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/stacpubs.html

Another external review of Bay Program modeling efforts "Modeling in the Chesapeake
Bay Program: 2010 and Beyond" completed January, 2006 is published by  STAC at
http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/ModBay2010Report.pdf

In June, 2005, another external review of the watershed model addressed the following
broad questions:  1) Does the current phase of the model use the most appropriate
protocols for simulation of watershed processes and management impacts, based on the
current state of the art in the HSPF model development?, and 2) Looking forward to the
future refinement of the model, where should the Bay Program look to increase the utility
of the watershed model? Details of this review and responses can be found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/subcommittee/mdsc/Watershed_Model_Peer_Revie
w.pdf

Data Limitations: None

Error  Estimate:    There may be errors  in classification,  georeferencing,  and
documentation, mistakes in the processing of data or data omissions.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The phase 5 watershed  model has 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/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169.

References:
   •   Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model web  site at
       http://www.chesapeakebay.net/model_phase5.aspx?menuitem=26169.
   •   Chesapeake Community Modeling website at
       http ://ches. communitymodeling. org/model s/CBPhase5/index .php.

-------
FY 2012 Performance  Measures:  Sustain  and  Restore the  US-mexico border
environmental health

   •  Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the Mexican
      border area that lacked access to drinking water in 2003
   •  Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the
      Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003
   •  Loading of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed (M Ib/yr) from the
      U.S.- Mexico border area since 2003.

Performance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is based on construction
completion of certified projects,  which is tracked  and reported quarterly by the Border
Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development
Bank (NADB). Data fields are: population served by, and homes connected to, potable
water and wastewater  collection  and  treatment  systems and,  applicable  design
specifications,water quality  and  flow data for removal of biological oxygen demand
(BOD).

Data Source: Data sources include U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census
and  Mexican  population figures  from  CONAGUA using  Institute  Nacional de
Estadistica, Geografia y Informatica (INEGI)  data to establish  the baseline. Data on
population  served and homes connected by "certified" water/wastewater projects are
estimated based on project  planning  and design  documents, tracked and reported by
BECC  and NADB and reflected in  EPA project completion  schedules for certified
projects.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
Overarching population figures  are  provided by  the nationally  designated  census
agencies.   Homes connected  and population served are tracked  and reported  in
conjunction with construction progress.  Population served may include assumptions of
average household size.

Projections of BOD removal are based  on actual average  daily flows at wastewater
treatment plants, when available, or incorporate per-capita averages typical of the region.
Actual influent and effluent water quality data are used when available and are otherwise
based on accepted engineering averages.

QA/QC Procedures:  BECC  and NADB are responsible for  field verification of project
information and progress. EPA Regions are responsible for evaluation of reports from
BECC  and NADBon drinking  water and wastewater  sanitation  projects.  Regional
representatives attend meetings of the certifying and financing entities for border projects
(BECC and NADB),  review various planning  and construction related documents and
conduct  project oversight visits  of projects  to confirm  information accuracy. EPA
Headquarters compiles, reviews and tracks information provided by the EPA Regions.

-------
Data Quality Reviews: Regional representatives hold quarterly meetings with the BECC
and NADBand  conduct  site  visits of projects underway  to ensure the accuracy of
information reported.

Data Limitations: None.

Error Estimate: None.

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 Nacional  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 3 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Assess and Cleanup Brownfields

•  Brownfields properties assessed
•  Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
•  Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
•  Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged  at Brownfields
   properties.
•  Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse (program assessment measure)
•  Acres  of Brownfields made ready  for  reuse per  million dollars  Efficiency
   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
Institutional Controls Required
Institutional Controls in Place/Date
Engineering Controls Required
Engineering Controls in Place/date
Funding Leveraged
Jobs Leveraged

-------
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will be available for the FY 2011
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 (TEA) is collected from EPA Regions.

Methods,  Assumptions  and  Suitability:  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 several month data lag
for ACRES data.

Note that accomplishments reported by Brownfields Assessment Grantees, Brownfields
Cleanup Grantees, Brownfields RLF Grantees, Regional TBAs, 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 TEA 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  for which any required institutional controls are in place.
"Number  of cleanup  and redevelopment jobs leveraged"  is the aggregate of jobs
leveraged by Assessment, Cleanup, RLF  and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response
Program Grantees. "Amount  of  cleanup  and  redevelopment  funds  leveraged  at
Brownfields properties" is the aggregate of funds leveraged by  Assessment, Cleanup,
RLF, and State and Tribal  128 Voluntary Response Program 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 has updated, launched and
phased-in an online reporting form in FY 2009 to improve data collection and to expand
the community of grantees completing the form.

References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Investing in Partnership,
Possibility and People: A Report to Stakeholders from the US EPA Brownfields
Program", Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, November 2005,
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/news/stake_report.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Assessment Pilots/Grants", Office
of Brownfields and Land Revitalization,
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Pilots/Grants", Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization,
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Job Training Pilots/Grants", Office
of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm
(accessed August 15, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Brownfields Cleanup Grants", Office of
Brownfields and Land Revitalization,
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm (accessed August 15, 2009).

GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

   •  Billions  of pounds of municipal  solid  waste reduced, reused, or recycled
      Waste Generation and Recycling

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 and Assumptions: 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 FY 2012 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.

EPA influences  national recycling  based on  its investment,  over many years, in the
development and implementation of voluntary programs, as well as information tools, to
motivate State and local government, business, manufacturers, and citizens to reduce the
municipal solid waste generated and increase recycling. The level of national recycling is
published biennially in the report "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States."  The
current report describes the municipal solid waste stream based on data  collected yearly
from 1960 through 2008.

Many  State and local governments, industry  and  citizen groups use EPA materials to
develop their recycling programs.  The Agency also has a significant impact on national
recycling rates through its participation  in major conferences, national  and trade press
efforts, and convening summits and focus groups. Additionally, EPA meets with national
organizations such as the Association of State and  Territorial  Solid Waste Management
Officials, National Recycling Coalition, and Solid Waste Association of North America
to promote recycling.

The  second  component of the FY 2012 measure  is  comprised of EPA's  annual
commitments as tracked  in the ACS database.  In  addition to efforts in support of the
national recycling measure, the Agency will track and report accomplishments based on
results achieved from grants, FTE-only opportunities, work assignments (if applicable),
and EPA Region-specific partners.

The  final component  of the  FY  2012 measure  is  partnership  attribution.   EPA's
WasteWise  program provides program  design assistance,  implementation  assistance,
networking opportunities, helpline and listserve support, and recognition opportunities to
partners enrolled  in the program.  The cumulative effect and investment  in voluntary
partnerships contribute to the  increase in the national recycling rate.   EPA currently
claims 25% of recycling and source reduction achievement reported by partners. As part
of their enrollment in the WasteWise program,  partners submit a baseline waste reduction
to use as a point of comparison to measure EPA's influence.

-------
The FY 2012 MSW 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.

Suitability: The report, including the baseline numbers, annual rates of recycling and per
capita municipal  solid waste generation, is widely  accepted by solid waste management
practitioners.

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 Reviews: N/A

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 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 Resource  Conservation and  Recovery
(ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data  or  Systems: The measure represents EPA's accomplishments in
promoting recycling.

References:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008," Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf (accessed July 29,
2010).

Waste News. "Municipal Recycling Survey". Grain  Communications, Inc. 2009.
Available annually  from wasterecyclingnews.com. http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com
(accessed July  29, 2010)..

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community
Record-Setters Show How". Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response. EPA-530-

-------
F-99-017, October 1999. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/downloads/f99017.pdf
(accessed July 29, 2010).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Evaluation of Diversion and Costs for Select
Drop-Off Recycling Programs". Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-R-95-
109, June 1995. http://www.epa.gov/nscep (accessed July 29, 2010).
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

       •  Number of hazardous waste facilities with  new  or updated controls.
          Minimize releases of hazardous waste and petroleum products
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 and  Assumptions: RCRAInfo, the national database  which supports EPA's
RCRA program, contains information on entities  (generically referred to as "handlers")
engaged in hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the
portion of RCRA that provides for regulation  of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several
different modules, including status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.

Suitability: 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
https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation
of data.

QA/QC Procedures: 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 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 and

-------
other related codes. We have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions. The
most recent version of RCRAInfo, Version 4 (V4), has many added components that will
help the user identify errors in the system (Example: data gap report).

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 information on RCRA-regulated hazardous waste sites.  This non-
sensitive information is supplied from RCRAInfo to Envirofacts.

Data Quality Reviews: 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. Those recommendations  coincided
with ongoing internal efforts to improve the definitions of data collected, and 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.  The
"Permitting and Corrective Action Program Area Analysis" was the primary vehicle for
the improvements made in the December 2008 release (V4).

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 data may become out-of-date
because RCRA does not mandate the notification of all information changes.
Nevertheless, EPA tracks the facilities by their ID numbers and those should not change
even during ownership changes (RCRA Subtitle  C
EPA Identification Number, Site Status, and Site Tracking Guidance, March 21, 2005).
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 a static baseline for the total facilities tracked for GPRA, but there may be
occasions where we would need to make minor baseline modifications. The larger
permitting universe is carried over from  one Strategic Plan to the next with minor
changes (for instance, facilities referred to Superfund are removed, or facilities never
regulated are removed; facilities that applied for a permit within the last strategic cycle
are added). This universe is composed of facilities that were subject to permits as of 10-1-
1997 and subsequent years.  EPA plans to update the list of units that need "updated
controls" after the end of each Strategic Plan cycle. Those facilities that need updated
controls are a smaller set within the larger GPRA permitting universe tracked for
strategic and annual goals.

Error Estimate: N/A. Currently ORCR does not collect data on estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data or  Systems:  New data quality tools,  tracking,  and reporting
capabilities were added with V4 of RCRAInfo,  deployed in December 2008.  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 states have the  option to  use commercial off-the-shelf software  to  develop
reports from database tables.

References:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
RCRAInfo website with documentation and data
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/index.html (accessed July 22, 2010).

U.S. Government Accountability Office. "Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's
Information System Are Limited".  AEVID-95-167, August 22, 1995.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf (accessed July 22, 2010).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Permitting and Corrective Action Program
Area Analysis". WIN/INFORMED Executive Steering Committee, July 28, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  "RCRA Subtitle C EPA Identification Number,
Site Status, and Site Tracking Guidance". March 21, 2005

FY 2012 Performance  Measures:

•   Increase  the  percentage of UST facilities  that are  in significant  operational
    compliance  (SOC)  with  both  release  detection   and  release  prevention
    requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target
•   Reduce the number of confirmed releases at UST  facilities to five percent (5%)
    fewer than the prior year's target

Performance  Database:  Designated state  agencies and  EPA regions  individually
maintain records for reporting state and tribal UST program accomplishments,  and record
their individual state and regional tribal performance measures into the program's oracle
web-based system (LUST4).

Data Source: The data suppliers are the states and  territories who are  the direct
implementers of the program in their respective jurisdictions and the regions who provide
assistance to the tribes.  Each EPA regional office manages its own  state  and tribal
assistance agreements.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A

QA/QC Procedures:    EPA/OUST  will  oversee the use  of the  QA/QC  checklist,
incorporated into the LUST4 oracle web-based system.  Regions complete the QA/QC
checklist, sign it electronically and submit it to EPA/OUST. The QA/QC  checklist will be
incorporated into the web-based system.

-------
Data Quality Review: EPA's regional grants project officers and program managers
provide first-level data  quality reviews  and oversight  of the  recipients'  program
performance measure results. EPA/OUST reviews, comments and approves each record.

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: LUST4 oracle web-based system accessed through
EPA's portal.

References: Semi-annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year
2010 - as of September 30, 20 JO, dated November  20 JO;
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_10_34.pdf (accessed December 22, 2010)

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

       •  Increase in the percentage of coal combustion product ash that is beneficially
          used instead of disposed Waste Generation and Recycling

Performance Database:  Data to support this  measure are provided by the American
Coal Ash Association (ACAA).  EPA does not maintain a database for ash utilization.

 Data Source:  The ACAA conducts an annual voluntary survey  on coal  combustion
products (CCP) generation by the utility industry and beneficial use practices by related
industries.   Responders typically represent approximately 50-70%  of the electricity
generating capacity of the United States;  the responses to the 2008 survey were 68% of
the total US generating capacity. The ACAA survey also draws information from the
Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA)  Forms 923 and 860 as well as
other publicly available trade association data.

Methods and Assumptions: The reporting of utilization data is voluntary and requires
extrapolation and integration with several  sources of data.  ACAA uses EIA Forms 860
and  923 to quantify  total electricity generation and  coal  consumption which correlate
with byproduct generation. Form 923 also provides information about the generation and
disposition  of byproducts, whether for disposal or beneficial use.  ACAA augments the
beneficial use data with its  own survey data. EPA does not do any QA/QC of the data
prior to publication. Overall, the data are considered to be  of good  quality on a national
basis due to the combination of the mandatory DOE data and the ACAA survey data. By
contrast, EPA's Toxics Release Information data does not track end-use and does not
require reporting of materials by their utilization.

Suitability:  The  coal combustion  product  recycling rate  is defined as tons  of CCPs
recycled divided by tons of CCPs generated nationally by coal-fired  electric utilities. For

-------
the purposes of this performance measure, EPA considers beneficial use to include all
CCP  categories collected by the ACAA  except for mining  applications  (minefill).
Categories aggregated  for  the  numerator  include  concrete/concrete products/grout,
blended  cement/raw feed for clinker, flowable  fill, asphalt,  snow  and ice control,
blasting/grout/roofing granules, gypsum panel products, waste stabilization/solidification,
agriculture, aggregate and miscellaneous/other.

The goal  is to  obtain a consistent historical data series for the generation and use of
CCPSs. These data are essential to evaluate the effectiveness of beneficial use programs
and activities.  EPA  does not claim to be  solely responsible  for  annual  changes to
beneficial use rates as other exogenous factors contribute to improvements in re-use (e.g.,
market conditions, NGO activity, etc.)

QA/QC  Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control for production numbers
reported on EIA Forms 860 and 923 are provided by the Department of Energy's internal
procedures and systems. The ACAA provides its own QA/QC check by comparing the
data from its own survey with the DOE data,  thereby assuring a high level of accuracy at
the national level. Data on utilization  within specific categories are also reviewed by
CCP industry experts for accuracy within categories  of beneficial use, such as cement,
concrete and wallboard. The ACAA does not  provide any formal opportunity for the EPA
to conduct QA/QC checks prior to publication, although some discussion and analysis of
the preliminary data usually takes place.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data  Limitations: The ACAA  annual survey  data are  considered  to be  of good to
excellent quality on the national level due to the combination of the mandatory DOE data
and the ACAA survey data.  While the ACAA survey is voluntary and covers only a
portion  of the  industry, the DOE data enable  accurate extrapolation based on well
characterized electricity generating capacity. Data limitations are associated with some
States and regions which may be under-represented in the survey.

Error Estimate:  N/A. Currently,  the Office of Resource Conservation and  Recovery
(ORCR) does not collect data on estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems: The current DOE Form 923 replaced the Form 767 in
2007, which necessitated adjustments  in completing the ACAA survey. The ACAA
survey data  are now considered consistent with  past years. In  2009,  ACAA  began
including mine  reclamation data from ARIPPA, thereby substantially increasing the  size
of the sample. Counterbalancing this change, however, is the fact that EPA subtracts out
these and other mine reclamation data for its own beneficial use reporting purposes. No
new data sources or collection practices are contemplated at this time.

References: American Coal Ash Association. "2008 CCP Production and Use Survey
Report."   http://www.acaa-usa.org/ (accessed July 28, 2010).

-------
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

    *   Number  of facilities with  new  or updated  controls per  million dollars of
       program cost Efficiency

Performance 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 Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) develops
ICRs  and ensures they have active ICRs approved by the OMB  for all of their RCRA
permitting and base program information collection activities.  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 and Assumptions:

Numerator - Facilities with approved or updated controls as described above; 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.  Examples include sites cleaned up to a protective
level; any groundwater releases controlled so no further attenuation is  occurring;  any
remaining waste  safely removed or capped (isolated); and long term controls in place to
protect people and the environment at the site, if any contamination remains. An updated
control, such as a permit renewal, indicates that the facility has upgraded its operations to
ensure continued safe operation, minimizing the potential for releases and accidents.

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 which impact program expenditures

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 and Tribal
Assistance  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.

Suitability:   EPA's  BAS is the primary source for budget formulation data and is
considered  definitive for all Agency users.   RCRAInfo  is also  considered  to be  a
definitive source of RCRA facility  information,  and much of the  data contained in
RCRAInfo is  available nowhere else.  The data are  considered accurate at the  regional
and national levels.

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 Reviews: N/A.

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 ORCR 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: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of Environmental
Information. Federal Docket Management System (FDMS).  http://www.regulations.gov
(accessed December 22, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Chief Financial Officer.  Budget
Automation System. Internal agency operating system on EPA intranet, (accessed
December 22, 2009).

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

    •  Number  of tribes  covered by an integrated solid  waste  management plan
      Waste Generation and Recycling

Performance Database: EPA Regions have internal  data systems which are appropriate
for the size  of the data set.  As of October 2009, a nationwide total of 94 tribal integrated
waste management plans have been counted in EPA's Annual Commitment System.

Data Source: EPA Regional offices enter data into their internal data systems.

Methods and Assumptions: Regional data systems  reflect EPA Regional  offices'
evaluations  of tribal integrated waste management plans and do not require any other data

-------
elements or sources.  The data systems are considered to be appropriate for the minimal
complexity and small size of the data set.

Suitability: The data are reviewed by EPA for data quality and periodic adjustments are
made during these reviews.  The data  are considered to be accurate on a regional and
national scale.

QA/QC: The internal EPA data set housing the specific solid waste management plans
for each tribe is managed by each regional office and is under  the control of each region.
Also, because the data are very  small in size on  a region by region  basis,  it can  be
managed efficiently by each regional office and is considered to be accurate.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A.

Data Limitations: EPA  Regions have ownership of this data.  There are no other
limitations.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: During FY 2011, EPA will be compiling the regional
data into a spreadsheet for national tracking purposes.

References: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Five Elements of a Tribal
Integrated Waste Management Plan". Memorandum from Matt Hale, Director, Office of
Solid Waste.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Oc994248c239947e85256d090071175f/E7661F3537
91AD71852573780050876E/$file/14776.pdf (accessed July 14, 2010).

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

   •   Number of closed, cleaned up or upgraded dumps  in Indian Country  or
       other tribal lands Waste Generation and Recycling

Performance  Database:   Indian  Health Service's  Web  Sanitation Tracking and
Reporting System (w/STARS) database.  This database is a subset of the Operation and
Maintenance Data System (OMDS).

Data Source: EPA's  Regional offices, in collaboration with MS, report the performance
data  continually to the w/STARS database.  The database is restricted to personnel who
have specific passwords.

Methods and Assumptions: The w/STARS database contains information regarding the
location, composition, use status,  proximity to population, and other related dump  data.
Reports generated for EPA from the database focus on the status of the open dumps.

-------
Suitability: The data are reviewed by the EPA and IHS for data quality.  The data are
considered to be accurate on a national scale.

QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control relate to internal procedures
for the IHS w/STARS  reporting process.   Access to the  data system is restricted to
password holders.  Data generated by tribal government staff is verified and then entered
by EPA or fflS staff.

Data Quality Review: N/A.

Data Limitations: The  w/STARS database contains data pertaining to the open  dumps
located on the lands of the 572 federal recognized tribes.  EPA is aware that new open
dumps may be created on these lands.  While EPA has access to the database, IHS  has
ownership of the database.

Error  Estimate: N/A.  Currently, the Office  of Resource  Conservation and Recovery
(ORCR) does  not collect data on estimated error rates.

New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA Regional offices and IHS staff are in the process
of a significant data collection effort to update the universe  of known open dumps.  The
initial data collection was  completed  in December 2009.  During the past several years,
MS, in collaboration with EPA,  customized the w/STARS database to  better meet EPA
needs and requirements.  This effort is currently ongoing.

References:   U.S. Department of Health and  Human Services.  Indian Health Service.
w/STARS data are available from the  IHS website, http://www.ihs.gov (accessed July 14,
2010).
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

   •   Conduct  560  Risk  Management  Plan  audits  and  inspections Reduce
       Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities

Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) is the database
for the number of risk management plan (RMP) 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 and Assumptions:  Regions enter data into the Agency's Annual Commitment
System.   HQ prepares an annual  report.   Data  are count  data  and not open to
interpretation.

Suitability:  The sub objective's goal is to reduce chemical risks at facilities  and in
communities. Under the authority of section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, the Chemical
Accident Prevention Provisions require facilities that produce, handle, process, distribute,
or store  certain chemicals to develop a Risk Management Program, prepare  a Risk
Management Plan (RMP), and submit the RMP to EPA. The purpose of this performance
measure is to ensure that facilities that are required  to have risk management plans do
indeed have plans and are available in case of an incident.

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

GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Emergency Preparedness and Response

       •   Percent of all SPCC facilities found  to be  non-compliant  which are
          brought into compliance
       •   Percent of all FRP facilities found to be non-compliant which are brought
          into compliance

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 SPCC and FRP facilities. EPA will also be using its in-house SPCC/FRP Oil
Database to pull data related to inspected facilities to assist measurement tracking.

Data  Source: Data concerning inspections/exercises at  FRP and SPCC facilities are
provided by Regional staff through the program's in-house SPCC/FRP Oil Database.

-------
Methods  and  Assumptions:  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. The assumption for the oil program's compliance measures is
that the universe will consist of all facilities that were found to be non-compliant during
the course of the year. Each year thereafter, this number and  the number of facilities that
were  brought into  compliance will be  determined on  a  cumulative basis,  and the
percentage calculated accordingly.

Suitability: For the new Strategic Plan, EPA is proposing a focus on bringing SPCC and
FRP facilities into compliance.   This will necessitate national  consistency in targeting
inspections as well as the process to bring non-compliant facilities into compliance.

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: Due to the nature of tracking inspections,  there should not be any data
limitations.

Error Estimate: Data reported by the Regions should be relatively free of error.

New/Improved Data or Systems: There  are plans in place to develop  an Oracle-based,
online Oil Database which will create a nationally consistent programmatic database.

References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Emergency Preparedness and Response

       •   Score on Core NAR evaluation

Performance   Database: No  specific  database  has been  developed.  Data from
evaluations from each of the 10 Regions, Special Teams, and Headquarters are tabulated
and stored using standard  software (e.g., Word, Excel).

Data  Source:  The Core National Approach to Response (NAR) measures EPA's
readiness for day-to-day  removal activities as well as national readiness  for multiple
significant events. Beginning in 2011,  these two  aspects  of Core  NAR will be scored
separately.  Data are collected through  detailed surveys of all Regional programs, EPA
special teams and HQ offices. The  process will include interviews with personnel and
managers in each program office.

-------
While EPA works to improve its preparedness to chemical, biological, and radiological
incidents,  improvement in the homeland security readiness  measure  is  expected to
gradually improve. The FY 2012 Core NAR HS target is to improve homeland security
readiness by 5 points from the FY 2011 baseline performance.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To ensure that the goals of the NAR are being
met, EPA has developed a Core NAR evaluation. (The National Approach to Response is
an Agency wide mechanism to address effective evaluation of resources.) The Core NAR
evaluation criteria measure the Agency's readiness to  respond  to multiple, nationally
significant events. EPA Headquarters, Regions, and Special Teams are evaluated during
this process.  The evaluation team  consists  of managers and  staff from Headquarters,
including contractor support. Once  all  of the evaluations are complete, a national score
will be calculated based on average scores.

QA/QC Procedures: To be developed

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,
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 2012 Performance Measures:

•  Number  of   Superfund  remedial  site  assessments  completed  Clean-up of
   Contaminated Land

-------
•  Number of Superfund  sites with  human exposures under  control Clean-up of
   Contaminated Land
•  Number of Superfund sites with groundwater migration under control Clean-up
   of Contaminated Land
•  Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed Clean-
   up of Contaminated Land
•  Number of Superfund  sites Ready  for Anticipated Use  Sitewide. Clean-up of
   Contaminated Land
•  Number of Superfund PRP removal completions overseen,  including voluntary,
   AOC and UAO actions Emergency Preparedness and Response
•  Superfund-lead  removal actions completed annually Emergency Preparedness
   and Response
•  Number of Superfund Remedial Action Project Completions at Superfund NPL
   sites Clean-up of Contaminated Land

Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation,
and Liability System (CERCLIS)  is used by the  Agency to track, store, and report
Superfund site information. The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) may
also be operational in FY 2012.

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 core financial management system.

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.  The Site/Project field of the IFMS account number that is  assigned to every
financial transaction identifies site-specific obligations. 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.

"Projects" represent discrete actions  taken  to implement a site cleanup  remedy  as
described in the Record of Decision.  They are typically defined to address discrete
problems, such as specific media (e.g., ground water contamination), areas of a site (e.g.,
discrete areas of contamination), or particular technologies (e.g., soil vapor extraction).
A given remedy may contain multiple actions or projects depending on the nature of the
remedy selected

Suitability:  The Superfund Program's performance measures for FY 2012  are used to
demonstrate program progress and reflect major  site cleanup milestones from  start
(Assessment completion) to  finish (Number of Sites Ready for Anticipated 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 data users including
Regional Information Management Coordinators (EVICs), program  personnel,  data
owners, and data entry 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, 7) the
Office  of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Quality Management Plan;
and 8) Regional Data Entry Control Plans.   Specific  direction for these controls is
contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPEVI).

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; 2) the
OSWER Quality Management Plan;  3) EPA  IT  standards; 4)  Quality  Assurance
Requirements in all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and
maintained; and  5) EPA IT security policies.  In addition, specific controls are in place
for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.

Data Quality Reviews: Three audits, two by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the
other by  Government Accountability Office (GAO), assessed the validity  of the  data in
CERCLIS.  The OIG audit report, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030),  dated December 30,  1997, concluded that the Agency
"has good management controls to ensure accuracy of the information that is reported,"
and "Congress and the public  can rely  upon the  information  EPA provides regarding
construction  completions."  The GAO report, Superfund: Information on  the Status of
Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimated 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.   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  has  either  implemented  or continues  to  implement  these
recommendations.

-------
The IG annually reviews the end-of-year CERCLIS data, in an informal process, to verify
data that supports the performance measures.  Typically, there are no published results.

EPA received an unqualified audit opinion by the OIG for the annual financial statements
and recommends several corrective actions.  The Office of the Chief Financial Officer
indicates that corrective actions will be taken.

Data  Limitations:  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  identified some
weaknesses.  The  Agency disagreed with the study design  and report conclusions;
however, the report provided 11 recommendations on improving data quality with which
EPA  concurred and either implemented or is implementing.  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 current  data quality
objectives.

Error Estimate:  The  GAO's report,  Super/and: 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.

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,  and is
reviewed annually. The Data Entry  Control plans are key to  ensuring comprehensive
information entry into CERCLIS.  EPA Headquarters has developed  data quality audit
reports  and SOPs,  which address timeliness, completeness,  and accuracy, and  has
provided these reports to the Regions.  Information  developed  and  gathered in  the
modernization effort is a valuable resource for scoping the future redesign of CERCLIS.
This redesign is necessary to bring CERCLIS into alignment with the Agency's mandated
Enterprise Architecture.  The first steps in  this effort involved the migration of all 10
Regional databases and the Headquarters database into one single national database at the
National Computing  Center  in  RTF and the migration of  Superfund Document
Management System  (SDMS) to RTF to improve  efficiency and storage capacity.
During  this process SDMS  was linked  to  CERCLIS  which  enabled users to easily
transition between  programmatic accomplishments as  reported in CERCLIS  and the
actual document that defines and describes the accomplishments.  EPA Headquarters is
now scoping the requirements for an  integrated SDMS-CERCLIS system, called the
Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS). Work on SEMS  began  in FY 2007
and will continue through FY 2013.

-------
SEMS will provide a common  platform for major Superfund systems and future IT
development.  It  will  be constructed in part using EPA  IT enterprise  architecture
principles and components.  SEMS will provide a Superfund Program user gateway to
various IT systems and information collections.

In an effort to better facilitate and capture important Superfund data, a new CERCLIS
Five-Year Review  Module  was released June  2006.   In  addition,  a  new CERCLIS
Reuse/Acreage Module was released in June 2007 to  support two  new performance
measures. During  FY 2009, CERCLIS  data  fields are  being  reviewed with  the
development of SEMS in mind. The enforcement module will be  trimmed during  FY
2010 to facilitate the data conversion which will be necessary to fully implement SEMS.

References:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Performance and
Accountability Reports, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/par/index.htm (accessed December 30,
2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Accomplishment  and Performance
Measures, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomplishments.htm (accessed December 30,
2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office -
Performance measures, http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/measures.htm (accessed
December 30, 2009)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Superfund
Construction Completion Reporting, E1SGF7_05_0102_8100030,
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm (accessed December 30, 2009).

U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Information
Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality, No. 2002-P-00016,
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm (accessed December 30, 2009).

U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Superfund Information  on the Status of Sites,
GAO/RCED-98-241", http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241 .pdf (accessed
December 30, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation, Superfund Program Implementation Manuals (SPIM),
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/guidance.htm (accessed July 30, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Respose,
"OSWER Quality Management Plan", http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf
(accessed December 30, 2009).

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA
System Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.5,
http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf (accessed December 30, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA IT
Standards, http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf (accessed December 30, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA's
Information Quality Guidelines, http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines
(accessed December 30, 2009).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, EPA
EVI/IT Policies, http://intranet.epa.gov/oeiintra/imitpolicy/policies.htm (accessed July 30,
2009).

FY 2012 Performance Measures:

•   Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under
    control Clean-up of Contaminated Land
•   Cumulative  percentage of  RCRA facilities  with migration of  contaminated
    groundwater under control Clean-up of Contaminated Land
•   Cumulative percentage of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed
    Clean-up of Contaminated Land
•   Number of final  remedy  components constructed at RCRA corrective action
    facilities per federal, state and private sector costs. Efficiency

Performance Database:  The  Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act Information
System (RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program and  all
four corrective action performance measures.

Data  Source: States  and regions enter  all data. With respect to meeting the human
exposures to toxins controlled and releases to groundwater controlled,  a "yes,"  "no",  or
"insufficient information" entry is made in the database. A separate entry is made in the
database to indicate  the date of remedy construction.  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 costs are assembled from their respective budgets.  Private sector costs are
derived from Environmental Business Journal data.

Methods and Assumptions: 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  all RCRA Corrective  Action  Program's

-------
facilities. The environmental indicators are used to track the RCRA Corrective Action
Program's progress in dealing with immediate threats to human health and groundwater
resources. Known and suspected facility-wide conditions are evaluated using a series of
simple questions and flow-chart logic to arrive at a reasonable, defensible determination.
These questions were issued as a memorandum titled: Interim Final Guidance for RCRA
Corrective Action Environmental Indicators, Office of Solid Waste, February 5, 1999).
Lead  regulators  for  the  facility (authorized state or  EPA)  make the  environmental
indicator determination,  but  facilities or  their consultants  may  assist EPA  in  the
evaluation by providing information on the current environmental conditions.

The  remedy construction  measure  tracks the  RCRA Corrective Action Program's
progress in moving sites  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.

Suitability:  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). EPA has provided guidance and training to states  and
regions to help ensure consistency in those determinations.

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.

QA/QC  Procedures: 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. The latest version of RCRAInfo, Version 4 (V4), was
released  in December 2008 and has many added components  that will  help the user
identify errors in the system.

Data  Quality Reviews: 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 coincided 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 Corrective Action sites  are monitored on a facility-by-
facility basis  and the QA/QC procedures identified above are in place to 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 Resource Conversation and  Recovery
(ORCR) 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: U.S. Government Accounting Office Report to Congress. "Study to Identify
Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository
Library System", June 1996.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html (accessed July 22,
2010).

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Clean-up of Contaminated Land

»   Number of LUST cleanups completed  that meet risk-based standards for human
    exposure  and groundwater migration.
*   Number of LUST cleanups completed  that meet risk-based standards for human
    exposure  and groundwater migration in Indian country.

Performance Database:  Designated  state agencies  and  EPA  regions individually
maintain records  for reporting state and tribal  LUST program  accomplishments and
record  their individual  state  and  tribal performance measures in the  program's oracle
web-based system (LUST4)..

Data  Source: The  data  suppliers are  the states and  territories who are the direct
implementers of the program in their respective jurisdictions and the regions who provide
assistance  to  the Tribes. Each EPA regional office manages their own  state  and tribal
assistance agreements.

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/PMDefmitions.pdf)

QA/QC Procedures: EPA/OUST will oversee the use of the QA/QC checklist, which is
incorporated into the LUST4  oracle web-based system. Regions complete the QA/QC
checklist,  sign it electronically and submit it to EPA/OUST for review, comment and
approval of each record.

Data Quality Review:  EPA's regional grants project officers and regional program
managers  provide  first-level  data quality reviews and oversight of their  recipients'
program performance  measure results. EPA/OUST provides second-level data  quality
reviews of all data.

Data Limitations: Data quality  depends  on the accuracy and  completeness of state
records.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data  or Systems: Web-based Oracle system accessed through EPA's
portal.

References: Semi-annual Report of UST Performance Measures, End Of Fiscal Year
2010 - as of September 30, 20 JO, dated November 20 JO;
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_10_34.pdf (accessed on December 22,2010)
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 4

FY 2012 Performance Measures: No Sub-objective

   •  Percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs
      in Indian country
   •  Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and
      assessment activities in Indian country
   •  Percent of tribes with an environmental program

Performance Database: EPA's American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) has 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
application,  the  Tribal Program Management System (TPMS), tracks  progress  in
achieving the  performance targets  under Goal 3 Objective  4 of EPA's 2011-2015
Strategic Plan - "Strengthen  Public  Health  and  Environmental Protection in Indian

-------
Country" and other EPA metrics.  EPA staff use TPMS to establish program performance
commitments for future fiscal years and to record actual program performance for overall
national program management.  The system serves as the performance database for all of
the strategic targets, annual performance measures and program assessment measures.

Data  Source: Data for the TPMS are input  on  an ongoing basis  by Regional  tribal
programs and EPA headquarters.

The original documents for the statements and data entered into the fields of the TPMS
can be found in  the files of the Regional  Project Officers overseeing the  particular
programs.  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 measure is based on a
count of tribes, and a given tribe may have more than one TAS program, and  may have
DITCAs as well.  Because of the tribes with multiple qualifying programs, the total
number of TAS designations plus DITCAs in Indian country is higher than the number of
tribes with regulatory environmental programs as reported for this measure. The  data are
reported by the Regions at mid-year and at the end of the year.

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  that have been
approved  by  Regional Quality  Assurance  Officers.   All  ongoing  environmental
monitoring programs  are required to have active QAPPs, which are used as a surrogate
for the monitoring activities  that occur in Indian country. However, tribes often have
more than one QAPP, so the count of total QAPPs is always higher than the performance
measure which counts the tribes  that have QAPPs.   Regional tribal program  liaisons
obtain information from Regional Quality Assurance Officers and input data into the
TPMS.  The  data are updated and reported on during 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 also demonstrate environmental  program activities by having
completed 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

-------
•  a  completed  inter-governmental  environmental  agreement  (e.g.,   State-Tribal
   Memorandum of Agreement (MO A), Federal-Tribal MO A).

The environmental  program measure thus requires two steps, the establishment of an
environmental office and the completion of an indicator activity.  EPA Regional project
officers  managing tribes with an  environmental program, input data, classified by tribe,
into the TPMS, to derive a national cumulative total.  Data are  input at mid-year, and
again at the end of the year.

Methods and Assumptions: TPMS contains all the information  for reporting on AIEO
performance measures and  program assessment 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 that the authorized person who enters the data is
knowledgeable about the performance status of the tribe.

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 Goal  3
Objective 4 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:  Each Regional Administrator, who has tribal activity, is the
EPA official who certifies information in TPMS prior to submission to AIEO. However,
in some cases the Regional Administrator may wish to delegate the signatory authority to
another  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  TPMS.  Even though the Regional
Project Officer may enter data on an ongoing basis, at the end of the reporting cycle the
TPMS 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 TPMS,  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 TPMS is  designed to improve data quality of
AIEO's  performance. TPMS tracks AIEO performance measures in the Agency Strategic

-------
Plans 2006-2011,  2009-2014, and  2011-2015.  Thus,  although  measures and  data
parameters change with time, TPMS provides a continuous record of tribal environmental
activities from 2006 to the present time.

References:
Tribal Program Management System: https://iiaspub.epa.gov/TATS/
OCFO                Information               Quality               Guidelines:
http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html

GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2012 Performance Measure:  Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •  Number of chemicals for which Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
      (EDSP) decisions have been completed.

Performance Database: EPA will measure the number of chemicals for which
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have been completed.  EDSP
decisions for a chemical can range from determining potential to interact with the
Estrogen (E) Androgen (A), or Thyroid (T) hormone systems to otherwise determining
whether further endocrine related testing is necessary.  These decisions will take into
consideration Tier 1 screening battery data, other scientifically relevant information
(OSRI),  and/or the regulatory status of a chemical, as applicable.  The decisions will be
counted once EPA announces them via updates to the Assay Status Table on the EDSP
website.

This performance measure is best used in conjunction with another EDSP annual
performance measure (Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been
issued).  Measuring the number of chemicals  for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have
been issued will, together with additional chemical specific information, help set
performance targets for the number of chemicals for which EDSP decisions have been
completed.

Data Source: EPA has created and is maintaining an on-line database for tracking the
status of the initial pesticide chemicals to be screened in the EDSP (see Highlights box at
http://www.epa.gov/endo).  The database includes for each chemical: the date a test order
was issued, to whom the test order was issued, the due date for completing and
submitting the data, and the recipient's response to the order. In addition, the database
will include information on EDSP decisions.  EPA anticipates expanding this database to
include chemicals other than pesticides.

Methods and Assumptions: EDSP decisions for a particular chemical (in Tier 1) can be
organized into two broad categories: (1) regulatory actions and (2) determinations
regarding potential  to interact with E, A, or T. In both cases, the decisions will determine
whether further endocrine related testing is necessary for that chemical.

-------
There are several regulatory actions that will remove a chemical from further
consideration for endocrine related testing in the EDSP. These include, for example,
cancellation of pesticide registrations, ceasing sales of the chemical for use in pesticide
products, and discontinuing the manufacture and import of the chemical.  These actions
may be voluntary on the part of a Tier 1 test order recipient or the result of an EPA
regulatory determination.  In either case, when such  regulatory decisions have been
completed for a chemical in Tier 1 of the EDSP, that chemical will be counted for this
measure.

EPA will be developing broad criteria that will include guidance on the Weight of
Evidence (WoE) analysis that will lead to decisions about whether chemicals have the
potential to interact with E, A, or T.  These criteria will help define what constitutes
completion of a decision based on Tier 1 screening battery data and OSRI as applicable.
Once decisions regarding a chemical's potential to interact with E, A, or T have been
completed, that chemical will be counted for this measure.

Suitability:  Beginning in FY 2012, EPA anticipates that an increasing proportion of the
resources allocated to the EDSP will be used for EDSP decisions as submissions of Tier 1
screening battery data are expected to begin in FY 2012.  As a result, a measure based on
the number of chemicals for which EDSP decisions have been completed captures an
important shift in resource utilization for the program.

QA/QC Procedures:  The number of chemicals for  which EDSP  decisions have been
completed can be checked against supporting records documenting the decisions.

Data Quality Review:  Data generated for this measure will be reviewed for accuracy
before submitting. In addition, since the data will  correspond to the on-line reporting on
the status of chemicals in the EDSP, the public and other interested parties will be able to
easily determine the accuracy of the reported results.

Data Limitations: In general,  it is anticipated that the EDSP decisions will vary from
chemical to chemical with respect to complexity and timing.  Therefore,  careful analysis
will be needed in setting performance targets each year. It is anticipated that annual
performance targets will be established by considering (to the extent practicable) the
number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued, the identity of
the chemicals, the number of Tier 1 test order recipients, any other available chemical
specific information and EPA resources available to  complete data evaluations.
However, several factors remain unpredictable and will impact the schedule for
completing EDSP decisions.  These include, for example, the number of pesticide
cancellations and other regulatory actions that may remove a chemical from commerce
and/or discontinue manufacture and import (voluntary  and enforced), unforeseen
laboratory capacity limits, and unforeseen  technical problems with completing the Tier 1
assays for a particular chemical. Each of these factors  can move the timeline for
completing an EDSP decision for a particular chemical beyond the fiscal year in which
the decision was originally anticipated.

-------
Error Estimate: Decisions are based solely on EPA actions once data are received, thus
minimal error is anticipated with this estimate.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: EPA EDSP Website (http://www.epa.gov/endo)


FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Number of chemicals for which EDSP Tier 1 test orders have been issued.

Performance Database: EPA will measure the number of chemicals for which EDSP
Tier 1 test orders have been issued. For the purpose of this measure, completing the
issuance of Tier 1 test orders for a particular chemical will be defined as completing the
initial issuance of orders to the order recipients initially identified by EPA.  Subsequent
issuance of orders to recipients who were not initially identified by EPA or to recipients
who became subject to EDSP requirements after the initial issuance of test orders
(referred to as "catch up" orders) will not be considered in this measure. Consistent with
EPA plans to integrate the EDSP Tier 1 test orders into the pesticide registration review
process, issuance of test orders for additional chemicals (including industrial chemicals
that are water contaminants) is expected to continue in FY 2011 and beyond.

The results from this performance measure, together with additional chemical specific
information, will help set performance targets for another EDSP measure: the number  of
chemicals for which Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) decisions have
been completed.

Data Source: EPA has created and is maintaining an on-line database for tracking the
status of the initial pesticide chemicals to be screened in the EDSP (see Highlights box at
http://www.epa.gov/endo).  The database includes for each chemical: the date a test order
was issued, to whom the test order was issued, the due date for completing and
submitting the data, the recipient's response to the order and other information.  As noted
above, the date the initial test orders are issued for a chemical will mark the completion
of that chemical for purposes of this measure.

Methods and Assumptions: Issuance of EDSP Tier 1 test orders follows the policies
and procedures that are described in detail in the Federal Register at 74FR17560.  These
existing policies and procedures are being adapted to address the additional  chemicals
(including water contaminants) for which the issuance of test orders is anticipated to
begin in FY 2011. EPA completes a comprehensive analysis using several databases to
identify companies that are potential order recipients for each chemical.  However, given
the dynamic nature of chemical markets, some companies may be missed in EPA's
analysis or companies may enter new markets subjecting them to the EDSP  requirements
for a chemical after the initial test orders for that chemical have been issued. EPA's
policies and procedures allow for "catch up" orders to address these situations.  Given

-------
that the time horizon for "catch up" orders is 15 years after the initial test orders are
issued for a chemical, for purposes of this measure, a chemical will be counted as
completed after initial test orders are issued.
Annual performance targets for this measure will be subject to obtaining an approved
Information Collection Request and the EPA resources available for issuing EDSP Tier 1
test orders.

Suitability:  With EPA plans to integrate EDSP Tier 1 test orders into the pesticide
registration review process and as EPA develops  subsequent lists of chemicals, EPA
anticipates that an increasing proportion of the EDSP resources will be used for the
issuance of Tier 1 test orders.  Therefore, a measure based on the number of Tier 1 test
orders issued captures performance of activities on which the program will be spending a
larger proportion of its future resources.

QA/QC Procedures: The number of chemicals for which Tier 1 test orders have been
issued can be checked against order related documentation.

Data Quality Review:  Data generated for this measure will be reviewed for accuracy
before submitting. In addition, since the data generated for this measure will  correspond
to the on-line reporting on the status of chemicals in the EDSP, the public and other
interested parties will be able to easily determine the accuracy of the reported results.

Data Limitations:  Annual performance targets may be influenced by a number of
factors including OCSPP's identification of manufacturers of chemicals and the
corresponding issuance of Information Collection Requests.  Therefore, careful analysis
will be needed in setting performance targets each year.

Error Estimate: Issuance of test orders is based largely on EPA actions, thus minimal
error is anticipated with this estimate.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: EPA EDSP Website (http://www.epa.gov/endo)
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Number of screening and testing assays for which validation decisions have
       been reached

Performance Database:  EPA will measure the number of screening and testing assays
for which validation decisions have been reached.  For the purpose of this measure,
reaching a validation decision for a particular assay will be defined as deciding that the
assay should be considered validated or, alternatively, deciding that the assay should not
be considered validated but that additional EPA validation efforts for the assay should be
discontinued. The decision will be included in the measure once EPA provides a written

-------
statement on its website announcing an assay as validated.  The latter decision could
result from a number of scenarios including encountering insoluble technical problems,
discovering that substantial additional research will be required, or discovering a new
technology that shows more promise for development into a validated assay.

Data Source:  EPA maintains an Assay Status Table on its EDSP website at
http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/assayvalidation/status.htm.  This status table includes
information from each step in the validation process. EPA plans to continue updating
this table with relevant information for the validation of Tier 2 tests and potential
additional or replacement assays for Tier 1 screening.

Methods and  Assumptions:  EPA anticipates continuing EDSP assay validation efforts
in three areas:  Tier 2 tests, potential replacement assays for existing Tier 1 screening,
and potential assays for additional endocrine modes beyond estrogen,  androgen, and
thyroid (e.g., hormones important for metabolism and weight regulation).  As efforts in
these three areas progress, the number of validation decisions will be counted for this
measure. The completion of the validation of an assay can take several years. There are
several steps within the validation process including: preparation of detailed review
papers, performance of prevalidation studies, validation by multiple labs, and peer
reviews. A decision to discontinue validation efforts for a particular assay could occur
during any of these steps.  However, a decision to accept an assay as validated occurs
after all the steps are successfully completed.  In either case, the decision would be
counted for this measure.

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 use
validated assays to screen chemicals for their potential to affect the endocrine system.
The measure represents a significant objective of this program (i.e., ensuring that
validated assays are available for screening chemicals for potential endocrine effects).  In
addition, the measure will capture EPA's efforts to replace outdated assays with updated,
more efficient screens that have been validated and to expand screening beyond estrogen,
androgen and thyroid disruption.

QA/QC Procedures: The number of screening and testing assays for which validation
decisions have been reached can be checked against supporting documents that are
generated during the various steps of validation.

Data Quality  Review: Data generated for this measure will be reviewed for accuracy
before submitting.  In addition, since the data will correspond to the on-line reporting in
the Assay Status Table on the EDSP website, the public and other interested parties will
be able to easily determine the accuracy of the reported results.

Data Limitations:  It is anticipated that annual performance targets for this measure will
include a mix of positive decisions (accepting an assay as validated) and negative
decisions (discontinuing validation efforts for an assay).  Setting numerical targets for
these decisions for assays that will complete all steps in the validation process during the

-------
upcoming year should be relatively straight forward.  However, since negative decisions
could occur during any of the steps in the validation process, it will be more difficult to
estimate the number of negative decisions for assays that are not anticipated to complete
all the validation steps in the upcoming year. Therefore, careful analysis will be needed
in setting annual performance targets.

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: EPA EDSP Website
(http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/assayvalidation/status.htm)


FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Ecosystems from Chemical Risks

    •   Percent of urban watersheds that do not exceed the National Pesticide
       Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern
       (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl)

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 in its second cycle
(cycle II) from 2002-2012, Data are available to the public on USGS-NAWQA website
from the (http://water.usge.gov/nawqa). USGS is currently developing sampling plans for
2013-2022.  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.  Monitoring plans  call for bi-yearly sampling in 8 urban watersheds; and

-------
sampling every four years in a second set of 9 urban watersheds. The sampling frequency
for these sites will range from approximately 13 to 26 samples per year depending on the
size of the watershed and the extent of pesticide use period. Sampling frequency is
seasonally weighted so more samples are collected when pesticide use is expected to be
highest.  USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2013-2022.

The pesticides diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl were selected for measurement
because of recent registration activity that is expected to reduce exceedences of aquatic
life benchmarks.

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). Although the USGS has performed a reconnaissance of pyrethoids
occurrence is bed sediment, there is not currently a comprehensive monitoring strategy.

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 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Ecosystsms from Chemical Risks

-------
   •   Percent of agricultural watersheds that do not exceed the National Pesticide
       Program aquatic life benchmarks for two pesticides of concern (azinphos-
       methyl and chlorpyrifos.)

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 in its second cycle
(cycle II) from 2002-2012.  Data are available to the public on the USGS-NAWQA
website from the (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/).  USGS is currently developing sampling
plans for 2013 - 2022. 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.  Monitoring 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 sites will
range from approximately 13 to 26 samples per year depending on the size of the
watershed and the extent of pesticide use period.  Sampling frequency is seasonally
weighted so more samples are  collected when pesticide use is expected to be highest.
USGS is currently developing  sampling plans for 2013 - 2022.

Azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos were selected for this measure because EPA
anticipates ongoing registration activity will have a direct effect on reducing exceedences
of aquatic life benchmarks.

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: These data continue to be evaluated and 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 has requested 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).  Although the USGS has performed a reconnaissance of
pyrethoids occurrence in bed sediment, there is not currently a comprehensive monitoring
strategy.

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.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Reduce the number of moderate to severe exposure incidents associated with
       organophosphates and carbamate insecticides in the general population.

Performance Database: The American Association of Poison Control Centers'
(AAPCC) maintains a national database of exposure incidents called the National Poison
Data System (NPDS), which is a compilation of data collected by AAPCC's national
network of 61 poison controls centers (PCCs). NPDS establishes standards in data
collection and definitions, which helps ensure that PCCs collect uniform data collection.
Incident data that is collected uniformly through NPDS includes date of PCC call, age
and gender of exposed individual, location of exposure, route of exposure, suspected
substance, medical severity, initial symptom assessment, and treatment received.

The incident data maintained in AAPCC's NPDS includes pesticide-related exposure
incidents that may occur throughout the U.S. population, including all age groups and
exposures occurring in both residential and occupational settings.  Summary data on

-------
pesticide-related incident data is reported on annual basis in AAPCC's Annual Report,
including the number of incidents by age, reason for exposure, level of medical treatment,
and medical severity.

Data Source: NPDS is a comprehensive source of surveillance data on poisonings in the
United States.  NPDS is a uniform database of 61 PCCs, which are members of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and are distributed
throughout the United States. The database was established in 1985 and now includes
information on more than 36 million exposure cases. In 2006, 61 PCCs received more
than 4 million cases, including more than 2.4 million human exposure cases and 1.4
million informational calls.

NPDS is a valuable public health resource and has been utilized to identify hazards,
develop education priorities, guide clinical research, and identify chemical and
bioterrorism incidents. As a result, NPDS has helped prompt product reformulations,
recalls, and bans, support regulatory actions, and provide post-marketing surveillance of
new drugs.7

Each individual PCC provides 24-hour emergency medical information on the diagnosis
and treatment of poisonings. Calls are routed from a single, nationally-available phone
number to the PCC generally in closest proximity to the caller. Since the service is
provided on a national scale, even though PCCs may not be located in every  state,
aggregate PCC data is generally considered to be nationally representative.

The calls are managed primarily by AAPCC-certified Specialists in Poison Information
(SPIs), who are typically pharmacists and nurses.  SPIs are required to complete detailed
electronic medical records for both exposure and informational calls.  The electronic
medical records include general demographic information, including age, gender,
location of exposure, and more detailed information if an exposure may have occurred,
including suspected substance, reason for exposure, route  of exposure, management site,
symptoms, and medical outcome.  To assist SPIs and ensure database uniformity, many
of the fields included in the  electronic medical records use categories that have been
defined by the AAPCC. For example, SPIs characterize the medical  severity of possible
exposures using the medical outcome field, which includes the AAPCC-defined
categories "None," "Minor," "Moderate," "Major," or "Death." Additionally, the records
may also contain several open fields, which allow SPIs to  record additional information
that may be relevant to the treatment and diagnosis of each case.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Summary data on pesticide-related exposure
incidents are publically available through AAPCC's Annual Report.  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
7 Bronstein AC, DA Spyker, LR Cantilena, J Green, BH Rumack, SE Heard. 2006 Annual Report of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System. Clinical Toxicology
(2007) 45, 815-917.

-------
the Agency's reduce risk registration process, from the continued implementation of
worker protection enforcement and training.

Carbamates and organophosphates were selected for measurement because EPA
anticipates recent registration activity will have a direct effect on reducing exposure in
the general population.

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, 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: In general, PCC's provide medical management services through their
response hotline and do not perform active surveillance of pesticide exposure incidents as
part of NPDS.  Due to this limitation, NPDS may be subject to reporting bias because of
underreporting and differences in utilization rates among difference segments of the U.S.
population.

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: American Association of Poison Control Centers (2009).  2008 Annual
Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data
System (NPDS):  26th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology, 47:911-1084.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in the general
       population.
    •   Reduction in concentration of targeted pesticide analytes in children.

Performance Database: The two performance measures will utilize pesticide
biomonitoring data (e.g., measurement of pesticide metabolite in NHANES urine
samples) on organophosphate and pyrethroid metabolites that are collected through the
Centers for Disease and Prevention's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES).  NHANES was selected as the performance database for the three

-------
measures because it is an ongoing program that is statistically designed to be nationally
representative of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population.

Data Source: NHANES 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 December 2009, and is available at the Web site
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. Performance results will be updated as NHANES
data are published either in the official CDC report on human exposure to environmental
chemicals or other journal articles or as the data becomes available.

The NHANES survey contains detailed interview questions covering areas related to
demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related subjects. It also includes an
extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological measurements,
and laboratory tests. NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-derived biological
markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and results of physical exams.
Analytical guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data
should be combined for an analysis. NHANES measures blood levels in the same units
(i.e., ug/dL) and at standard detection limits.

Methods and Assumptions:  Both performance measures will be based on levels of six
non-specific organophosphate dialkyl phosphate metabolites, chlorpyrifos-specific
metabolite 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol, and the non-specific pyrethroid 3-
phenoxybenzoic acid metabolite. The measure focused on the general U.S. population
will focus on all age groups included in NHANES and the measure focused on children
will focus on children less than six years old.

Baselines for each of the two performance measures will be established using existing
NHANES biomonitoring data  on organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides. During
each fiscal year, performance will then be evaluated by comparing subsequent NHANES
biomonitoring data with established baselines. Data lags may prevent performance
results from being determined for every  reporting year.

Suitability: Both measures support the  long-term goal of reducing the risk and ensuring
the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution at the  source by enabling EPA to better
assess progress in reducing exposure to targeted chemicals, as reflected in concentration
levels among the general population and key subpopulations. The second measure
focuses on exposure to such chemicals among children. Analytes for organophosphate

-------
and pyrethroid were selected for this measure because EPA anticipates recent registration
activity will have a direct effect on reducing exposure in the general population.
QA/QC Procedures: CDC/NCEH and CDC/NCHS are responsible for QA/QC of
laboratory analysis and NHANES datasets that are made publically available through
CDC/NCEH's website. Background documentation is available at the NHANES Web
site at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. The analytical guidelines are available at
the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/analytical_guidelines.htm. In addition to CDC's QA/QC procedures, EPA will also
evaluate the integrity of the NHANES public datasets and reconcile any potential issues
with CDC.

Data Quality Reviews: 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. 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 four non-statistical 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=%22
quality%20control%20NHANES%22
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/lab_c_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22q
uality%20NHANES%22

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. Seasonal  changes in blood levels cannot be assessed under the current NHANES
design nor can differences between geographic regions be discerned since this data is not
made publically available due to data confidentiality concerns.

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/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:  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Environmental Health (2010). National Report on Human Exposures to Environmental
Chemicals. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Percent of decisions completed on time (on or before PRIA or negotiated due
       date)
    •   Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions

Performance Database: The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003
established .pesticide registration service fees for registration actions. The Pesticide
Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2), effective October 1, 2007,
reauthorized the PRIA for five more years until 2012. The PRIA 2 legislation increased
the number of actions covered by fees, modified the payment process and application in-
processing. The category of action, the amount of pesticide registration service fee, and
the corresponding decision review periods by year are prescribed in these statutes. Their
goal is to create a more predictable evaluation process for affected pesticide decisions,
and couple the collection of individual fees with specific decision review periods. They

-------
also promote shorter decision review periods for reduced-risk applications. PRISM
(Pesticide Registration Information System) consolidates various pesticides program
databases. It is maintained by the EPA and track regulatory data submissions and studies,
organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted by the registrant in support of a
pesticide's registration. All registration actions received under the PRIA and PRIA 2 are
entered and tracked in PRISM.

In addition to being entered into PRISM, Section 18 actions are also tracked in a separate
database which is used to populate a searchable web page linked to the main Office of
Pesticide Programs web page. S18 timeliness was reported on a FY basis for the first time
in FY 2005.  Timeliness for Section 18 requests submitted in one FY and carried over to
the  next FY are included in this measure under the decision year. Withdrawn requests are
excluded from measurement.

Data Source: PRISM, Section 18 database

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. In addition, under
PRIA and PRIA 2 , there are specific timelines, based on the type of registration action,
by which the Agency must make a decision. These laws do allow the decision due date
under PRIA to be negotiated to a later date, after consultation with and agreement by the
submitter of the application. The timeliness measure represents the Agency's
effectiveness in meeting these PRIA timelines.

QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound  science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety standards.  All risk assessments are subject to
public and scientific peer review. The office adheres to its Quality Management Plan
(Nov. 2006) in ensuring data quality and that procedures are properly applied.

Data Quality Review: The Agency employs continuous monitoring of the status of PRIA
decisions. Numerous internal Agency meeting continue to monitor workload  and
compliance with PRIA due dates. Throughout the pesticide registration program, weekly
meetings are held to review the status of pending decisions, due date extensions, and
refunds; to identify potential issues and target their resolution; to resolve fee category
questions; and to coordinate schedules with science support organizations.  Senior
managers review justifications and make final decisions to extend of negotiate a PRIA
due date and whether or not to issue a "PRIA Determination to Not Grant" a registration.
On  a bi-monthly basis, progress in meeting PRIA due dates and the short term pending
workload are evaluated across all involved organizations and periodically shared with
stakeholder groups. EPA will also review the publicly available Section 18 database
periodically to ensure data quality.

Data Limitations: None known

-------
Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  Reports developed in Business Objects (using PRISM
as the data source) allow senior management to more effectively track the workload (e.g.,
pending actions with upcoming PRIA due dates, actions for which the PRIA date appears
to have passed etc.) and ensure that PRIA or negotiated due dates are met.

References: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/; FIFRA Sec 3(c)(5); FFDCA Sec
408(a)(2); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) 1996; Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act (PRIA) 2003; Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA
2)2007
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

    •   Number of Product Reregistration Decisions Protect Human Health from
       Chemical Risks
    •   Number of pesticide Registration Review dockets opened Protect Human
       Health from Chemical Risks
    •   Number of pesticide Registration Review final work plans completed Protect
       Ecosystems from Chemical Risks

Performance Database: OPP's Reevaluation process includes Product Reregistration
and Registration Review. The Product Reregistration process is scheduled to be
completed in 2014, while the Registration Review process will be in full operation at that
time.  Major milestones are tracked in the Pesticide Registration Information System
(PRISM).  PRISM is maintained by 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 review. Actions are entered in PRISM as they occur
and reported on a fiscal year basis.  In addition manual counts are maintained by the
office.

Data Source: EPA's Pesticides Program, PRISM, and Manual Systems.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measures are program outputs which
represent the program's statutory requirements to ensure that approved pesticides remain
safe for human health and the environment. While program outputs do not directly
measure risk reduction, they do reflect progress made toward reducing risk. In 1988,
Congress amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
requiring EPA to evaluate all pesticides registered prior to November 1984 to assure that
they meet current safety standard and are supported with high quality data. The review of
all the active ingredients (AIs) was completed in October 2008. Over the next five years,
registrants will be required to submit product specific data and new product labels to
comply with the decisions on the AIs. OPP's review and approval (or cancellation)
process of each individual product label is referred to as Product Reregistration. Product
Reregistration is scheduled for completion in 2014. The Food Quality Protection Act of

-------
1996 directed EPA to establish a Registration Review program with the goal of reviewing
all registered pesticides, AIs and products, on a 15-year cycle to ensure that they continue
to meet the standards of registration.  EPA issued the final rule in 2006 and began
implementing the program in 2007. Under the rule, EPA posts registration review
schedules and these will provide a baseline for expected AI case dockets that will be
opened for the next three year cycle and for decisions expected over the next several
years.  The first step of Registration Review is to open a public docket for each pesticide
case entering the process to show the public what the Agency knows about the AI and
seek comment.  When comments are  evaluated and data needs are finalized, OPP posts a
Final Work Plan (FWP) for each AI case. Although the docket openings and the FWPs
are tracked, both steps require notable resources to complete.

QA/QC Procedures: All registrations must be based on sound science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety  standard. All risk assessments are subject to
public  and scientific peer review. In addition, OPP management reviews and signs new
documents before being placed in the docket or posted on EPA's website.

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: EPA recently constructed a module in PRISM
tracking major Registration Review milestones.  This module enhances tracking
capabilities and is an important management tool.

References: EPA Website:  http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/registration_review/
("Registration Review: A Periodic Look at Old Pesticides").
FY 2012 Performance Measure:  Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

•   Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk pesticides

Performance Database: EPA uses an external database, GfK Kynetec, Inc. data, for this
measure. The data have been reported for trend data since FY 2001 on an FY and
calendar basis.

Data Source: Primary source is GfK Kynetec, Inc. (a private sector research database).
The database contains agricultural 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 the GfK Kynetec, Inc. database.
Information is also compared to prior years for variations and trends as well as to
determine the reasons for the variability.

GfK Kynetec,  Inc. sampling plans and QA/QC procedures are available to the public at
their website. More specific information about the data is proprietary and a subscription
fee is required. Data are weighted and a multiple regression procedure is used to adjust
for known disproportionalities (known disproportionality refers to a non proportional
sample, which means individual respondents have different weights) and ensure
consistency with USDA and state acreage estimates.

QA/QC Procedures: All registration actions must employ sound science and meet the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) new safety standard. All risk assessments are
subject to public and scientific peer review. The GfK Kynetec, Inc. 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
November, 2006.

The main customers for the GfK Kynetec, Inc. 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 the provided data.  If they considered the quality of the
data to be poor, they would not continue to purchase the data.

Data Quality Review: The GfK Kynetec, Inc. data are subject to extensive internal
quality review, documented at the website. EPA's statistical and economics staff review
data from GfK Kynetec, Inc. 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 Service of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA).

Data Limitations: GfK Kynetec, Inc. data are proprietary; thus in order to release any
detailed information, the Agency  must obtain approval from the company. 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 GfK Kynetec, Inc. 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 usage data at such a highly aggregated level are considered quite accurate.
GfK Kynetec, Inc. 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; GfK
Kynetec, Inc. http://www.gfk.com/gfk-kynetec/; 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.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Percent reduction of children's exposure to rodenticides

Performance Database: The American Association of Poison Control Centers'
(AAPCC) maintains a national database of exposure incidents called the National Poison
Data System (NPDS), which is a compilation of data collected by AAPCC's national
network of 61 poison controls centers (PCCs).  NPDS establishes standards in data
collection and definitions, which helps ensure that PCCs collect uniform data collection.
Incident data that is collected uniformly through NPDS includes date of PCC call, age
and gender of exposed individual, location of exposure, route of exposure, suspected
substance, medical severity, initial symptom assessment, and treatment received.

The incident data maintained in AAPCC's NPDS includes pesticide-related exposure
incidents that may occur throughout the U.S. population, including all age groups and
exposures occurring in both residential and occupational settings.  Summary data on
pesticide-related incident data is reported on annual basis in AAPCC's Annual Report,
including the number of incidents by age,  reason for exposure, level of medical treatment,
and medical severity.

Data Source: NPDS is a comprehensive source of surveillance data on poisonings  in the
United States.  NPDS is a uniform database of 61 PCCs, which are members of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), and are distributed
throughout the United States. The database was established in 1985 and now includes
information on more than 36 million exposure cases. In 2006, 61 PCCs received more
than 4 million cases, including more than 2.4 million human exposure cases and  1.4
million informational calls.

-------
NPDS is a valuable public health resource and has been utilized to identify hazards,
develop education priorities, guide clinical research, and identify chemical and
bioterrorism incidents. As a result, NPDS has helped prompt product reformulations,
recalls, and bans, support regulatory actions, and provide post-marketing surveillance of
new drugs.8

Each individual PCC provides 24-hour emergency medical information on the diagnosis
and treatment of poisonings. Calls are routed from a single, nationally-available phone
number to the PCC generally in closest proximity to the caller.  Since the service is
provided on a national scale, even though PCCs may not be located in every state,
aggregate PCC data is generally considered to be nationally representative.

The calls are managed primarily by AAPCC-certified Specialists in Poison Information
(SPIs), who are typically pharmacists and nurses.  SPIs are required to complete detailed
electronic medical records for both exposure and informational calls. The electronic
medical records include general demographic information, including age, gender,
location of exposure, and more detailed information if an exposure may have occurred,
including suspected substance,  reason for exposure, route of exposure, management site,
symptoms, and medical outcome.  To assist SPIs and ensure database uniformity, many
of the fields included in the electronic medical records use categories that have been
defined by the AAPCC.  For example, SPIs characterize the medical severity of possible
exposures using the medical outcome field, which includes the  AAPCC-defined
categories "None," "Minor," "Moderate," "Major," or "Death." Additionally, the records
may also contain several open fields, which allow SPIs to record additional information
that may be relevant to the treatment and diagnosis of each case.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  Summary data on pesticide-related exposure
incidents are publically available through AAPCC's Annual Report. 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 implementation 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, 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.
 Bronstein AC, DA Spyker, LR Cantilena, J Green, BH Rumack, SE Heard. 2006 Annual Report of the
American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System.  Clinical Toxicology
(2007) 45, 815-917.

-------
Data Limitations: In general, PCC's provide medical management services through their
response hotline and do not perform active surveillance of pesticide exposure incidents as
part of NPDS. Due to this limitation, NPDS may be subject to reporting bias because of
underreporting and differences in utilization rates among difference segments of the U.S.
population.

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:  American Association of Poison Control Centers (2009).  2008 Annual
Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data
System (NPDS): 26th Annual Report.  Clinical Toxicology, 47:911-1084.

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

   •   Percent of registration review chemicals with  identified endangered  species
       concerns, for which EPA obtains any mitigation of risk is obtained prior to
       consultation with DOC and DOI.

Performance Database: Ecological risk assessments and effects determinations will be
prepared to  support  a  registration review case.    Those  assessments and  effects
determinations which contain a determination that the pesticides' use "may affect" one or
more listed species will be counted as those with identified endangered species concerns.
Mitigation of risk is achieved when a change is committed to be or is actually made in the
registration of a pesticide product that eliminates or reduces the risk to a listed species of
concern.

Data Source: The data necessary to track progress  towards the targets for this measure
are currently being collected by OPP using internal tracking numbers.  The sources from
which this  information is obtained will be the ecological risk assessments and effects
determinations prepared to support a registration review case.  The data will be collected
annually beginning in 2012 with a baseline  of 0% for each reporting year as percentages
are not cumulative.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Mitigation, in the form of changes made to the
registration of a pesticide product,  is a critical mechanism  for ensuring protection of
endangered and threatened species from pesticide applications. Mitigation agreed to by
the registrants  prior to consultation with  the Services provides protection  for listed
species earlier than if we waited to  complete consultation with the Services, to  address
identified risks.  Furthermore, mitigation at this stage may conserve resources for both
the Agency and the Services as the resulting consultation process may be streamlined.
The  Services refer to  the National Marine  Fisheries Service and the  Fish and Wildlife
Service.

-------
This measure is calculated as follows:

       [The number of registration review  chemicals  for which the assessment and
       effects determinations identifies endangered  species concerns  and for which
       mitigation of risk is obtained prior to consultation with the Services  within a
       given reporting year] H- [The total  number of registration review chemicals for
       which the assessment and  effects  determination identifies endangered species
       concerns within the same reporting year] x 100.

Target(s): For 2012, the target is to achieve  any mitigation for 5% of the registration
review chemicals, relative to the number of registration review chemicals with identified
endangered species concerns. This percentage is expected to increase steadily as the
pipeline grows and the program develops.

   •   Targets will be reported annually (i.e., the 2012 goal reflects mitigation achieved in 2012
       for registration review chemicals with identified endangered species concerns).

   •   The baseline is 0% for each reporting period.  That is, the percentages are not cumulative
       but rather, the percentage for that reporting period.
Through this  measure the  Agency will  provide  an outcome oriented measure  for
Endangered  Species Act (ESA) compliance.

QA/QC Procedures: Assessments from which the numbers  are derived all go through
an internal review process and are vetted through the registration review  process and are
subject to public comment.

Data Quality  Reviews:   Data  quality reviews  for the assessments  themselves  are
ongoing through the QA/QC methodology described above.  Staff and  management of
OPP will perform the data quality reviews.

Data Limitations: N/A

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems:  This measure will use existing data and data systems.

References:
Endangered  Species Protection Program website: http://www.epa.gov/espp.

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect  Human Health from Chemical Risks

   •   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),

-------
Management Information Tracking System (MITS), Pre-manufacture Notice (PMN)
Lotus Notes, 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- PMNs received;

       •   MITS: Captures NCP regulatory dispositions  and maintains NCP workflow
          for new chemicals;

       •   PMN Lotus Notes: Records PMN review and decision, assessment reports on
          chemicals submitted for review. New workflow system for new  chemicals
          submitted since August 2008.

       •   PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN  review and decision, assessment
          reports on chemicals submitted for review before August 2008. 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) 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 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," November 2008). Like the 2003 QMP, it
ensures the 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 former National
Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Council (NPPTAC), comprised of external
experts who offered advice, information and recommendations to OPPT, provided
comments 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 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •  Reduction in the cost of managing PreManufacture Notice (PMNs)
      submissions  through  the Focus meetings as a percentage of baseline year
      cost. (Efficiency)

Performance Databases:  EPA will rely on two principal databases for purposes of
implementing this measure:

    •  Confidential Business  Information Tracking System (CBITS): CBITS allows
      users to access basic identifying and status information on each hard copy PMN
      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 the number
      of hard copy  submissions and requests for copies per fiscal year. CBITS is being
      phased out in favor of the MTS database.

-------
       Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database: This is a new system that enables its
       users to receive, process, and store electronic submissions of PMNs and
       accommodates searches and retrievals of PMNs by EPA or contractor staff.  The
       system also provides data on the number of electronic submissions per fiscal year
       and the number of searches and retrievals conducted electronically by accessing
       scanned documents. Currently, the system is designed to accommodate partially
       electronic, CD and paper submissions, but when fully deployed in more advanced
       form, it is expected to be a true workflow system that will eliminate all remaining
       manual sorting, processing and scanning elements.  CBITS functions will be
       merged into MTS.  The development and deployment of the full MTS workflow
       system is assumed to occur after FY 2012.
Data Sources:  The sources of data for this performance measure are the PMN
submissions themselves, including any attachments, and any statistical information on the
submissions that can be accessed through the two databases.  No external data sources
play a direct role in the calculation of measurement results.

Methods and Assumptions:  Performance is determined through the following steps:
(1) establish the baseline year (FY 2009) and develop baseline information on the
average time per submission required to conduct PMN processing and searches in that
year; (2) convert baseline average time per submission to baseline average cost per
submission by multiplying the average time by cost factors for contractor and EPA staff
work; (3) set appropriate targets  for fiscal years following the baseline year, reflecting
assumed increases in electronic reporting use; (4) conduct actual measurements of cost
per submission for fiscal years beginning with FY 2010, after the option of electronic
submissions, processing and searches becomes available; and (5) calculate the percent
reduction from the baseline year in cost per submission. These steps can be summarized
individually as follows:

       (1)  Develop baseline data:  FY 2009 baseline data for average time per
       submission were obtained for each of two submeasures that comprise the basis for
       the efficiency measure described here.  Those submeasures are: (a) average time
       associated with sorting and processing PMN submissions by the Confidential
       Business Information Center (CBIC) and (b) average time associated with
       enabling searchesand retrievals of PMNs by EPA  staff involved in the PMN
       review process. The time estimates are based on actual simulations involving
       both EPA and contractor personnel.  Since the baseline year preceded introduction
       of electronic reporting, all baseline estimates reflect paper submissions.

       (2)  Convert baseline average time to baseline average cost:  In general, average
       times are converted to average costs by multiplying the time involved in specific
       tasks with the applicable  EPA or contractor staff labor rates.  As an example, for
       the submeasure that describes the search and retrieval tasks performed by EPA
       staff, the estimated average time per submission is converted to estimated average
       cost by taking the standard hourly rate for a biologist at grade 14, step 1;  dividing

-------
       that rate by 60 to express the hourly rate in minutes; and multiplying the result by
       the estimated average time in minutes.  For tasks performed by contractor staff,
       labor rates are obtained from actual experience under the applicable contract
       provisions. Combining EPA and contractor staff costs yields the baseline average
       cost per submission. Similar calculations are performed for the submeasure that
       describes the sorting and processing tasks captured in this measure.
       (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 derived from the expected proportion of PMN submissions that are
       transmitted electronically, the estimated time required for processing and
       searching such materials, and the estimated contractor and EPA staff cost per unit
       of time.

       (4)  Conduct measurements:  The final step in the measurement process is to
       perform actual measurement for specific fiscal years.  This is done by consulting
       the databases described above to determine the number of submissions and the
       number of searches that are electronic and the number that are non-electronic and
       then multiplying those numbers by the appropriate baseline average cost per
       submission, which differs for contractor and EPA staff tasks. The products are
       then summed to arrive at the total  cost of managing PMN submissions for the
       fiscal year, and this figure is divided by the number of PMN submissions to
       obtain the total cost per submission for that year. The percent reduction is
       calculated by determining the difference between the baseline cost per submission
       and the total  cost per submission for the relevant year, and then dividing the result
       by the baseline cost per submission.

There are a number of facts and assumptions underlying the preceding methodology: (a)
baseline PMN submissions and searches are all conducted non-electronically; (b) possible
increases in contractor and EPA staff costs are disregarded in order to control for
inflation; (c) for both submeasures the average costs for processing and for searching are
proportional to the average times; and (d) the percentage of submissions provided in
paper, CD and electronic (CDX) forms changes over FY 2010-2012 in accordance with
an assumed progression

Suitability: The measure is suitable and appropriate because it captures, using
reasonable assumptions, the expected and actual cost savings stemming from automation
of the new chemical submission and review process. This represents EPA's progress
toward its goal of improving program efficiency. All data meet the QMP requirements
and outcomes are reviewed by OPPT senior management.

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," November 2008). Like the 2003  QMP, it
will ensure the 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 Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database will enable users to
track electronic submissions and handling of PMN information.  The system provides
data on the number of electronic submissions per fiscal year and the number of searches
and retrievals conducted electronically by accessing scanned documents. Non-electronic
submission data will also appear in the system.

References:  http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/pmnforms.htm

FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •  Annual number of hazard characterizations completed for HPV chemicals

Performance Database: EPA uses a reporting spreadsheet called HPV HC Tracking Data to
track the number of completed Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports. The
spreadsheet is located on the OPPT secure share drive. This information is supplemented and
aligned twice a year with an international database of chemicals sponsored internationally
through Screening Information Data Sets (SIDs) Initial Assessment Meetings. Hazard
characterizations are made publicly available through OPPT's High Production Volume
Information System (HPVIS).

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 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.

Methods and Assumptions: This measure analyzes and supplements data received through
HPV challenge. An assessment of adequacy is made for HPV chemicals defined as
approximately 2,450 chemicals (1400 US Sponsored chemicals, 850 International sponsored
chemicals, and 200 Original Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) SIDS Initial  Assessment Report (SIARs)). The measure is a count of completed
reports which are then posted on EPA's website.

-------
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 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.

Methods and Assumptions: This measure analyzes and supplements data received through
HPV challenge. An assessment of adequacy is made for HPV chemicals defined as
approximately 2,450 chemicals (1400 US Sponsored chemicals, 850 International sponsored
chemicals, and 200 Original Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) SIDS Initial Assessment Report (SIARs)).The measure is a count of completed
reports which are then posted on EPA's website.

References: 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; GAO-09-271: High Risk Series-An update. Transforming
EPA's Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals, January 2009.

FY 2012 Performance Measure:  Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Reduction in concentration of PFOA in serum in the general population.

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 statistics on blood levels of certain
chemicals of concern among the general population and selected subpopulation groups.
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.  For these performance measures, NHANES has been recognized as the
definitive source. The NHANES data directly estimate the values included in the
measures.

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/.  More recent performance results were published in

-------
a March 2009 Pediatrics journal article,
http://pediatrics.aappublications.Org/cgi/content/abstract/123/3/e376.  Performance results
will be updated as new peer reviewed NHANES data are published either in the official
CDC report on human exposure to environmental chemicals or other journal articles as
the data becomes available.

The NHANES survey contains detailed interview questions covering areas related to
demographic, socio-economic, dietary, and health-related subjects. It also includes an
extensive medical and dental examination of participants, physiological measurements,
and laboratory tests. NHANES is unique in that it links laboratory-derived biological
markers (e.g. blood, urine etc.) to questionnaire responses and results of physical exams.
Analytical guidelines issued by NCHS provide guidance on how many years of data
should be combined for an analysis. NHANES measures blood levels in the same units
(i.e., ug/dL) and at standard  detection limits.

Methods and Assumptions:  Data for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) presented in
CDC's Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Update
(July 2010) will be used to determine baseline concentrations for each chemical,
metabolite, or congener. The baseline years (corresponding to the NHANES sampling
period) chosen for PFOA were 2005-2006. Each fiscal year, the most recent
biomonitoring data on these chemicals available from CDC (geometric means) will be
compared to the baseline concentrations. The percent for which the concentration
decreased or remained unchanged between the baseline year and the latest measurements
will be calculated. The result of these calculations is then compared to the target set for
the year in which performance is being measured.  Data lags may prevent performance
results from being determined for every reporting year.

Suitability: Both measures support the long-term goal of reducing the risk and ensuring
the safety of chemicals and preventing pollution at the source by enabling EPA to better
assess progress in reducing exposure to targeted chemicals, as reflected in concentration
levels among the general population and key subpopulations.  The second measure
focuses on exposure to such chemicals among children.  These measures reflect the
Agency's priority of ensuring that harder to reach vulnerable populations are protected
from adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals of concern.

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 levels cannot be assessed under the current NHANES design.

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/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
Guidelines,http ://www. cdc.gov/nchs/about/maj or/nhanes/nhanes2003 -
2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

»   Percent of children (aged 1-5 years) with blood lead levels above 5 ug/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.

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/. More recent performance results were published in
a March 2009 Pediatrics journal article.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/3/e376 Performance results
will be updated as new peer reviewed NHANES data is published either in the official
CDC report on human exposure to environmental chemicals or other journal articles as
the data become available.

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 (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 and continuing to maintain the
elimination of childhood lead poisoning over time. 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/maj or/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
Guidelines,http ://www. cdc.gov/nchs/about/maj or/nhanes/nhanes2003 -
2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Protect Human Health from Chemical Risks

    •   Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications
       that require less than 20 days of EPA effort to process Efficiency
    •   Cumulative number of certified Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP)
       Firms

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. Records are maintained for both the abatement and
Renovation Repair and Painting programs in States where the program is directly
implemented by EPA.

Processing abatement applications:  The FLPP electronic database contains applications
for certification by individuals and firms and applications for accreditation by training
providers in states and tribal lands administered by the Federal lead abatement 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.

RRP Firms:  The FLPP database was recently expanded to also track the certification of
firms for Renovation Repair and Painting where EPA directly implements the program.
EPA uses an Oracle Discoverer application to query the database to collect measurable
performance data.

Data Source:  Processing Abatement applications: The FLPP database is available
internally to EPA Headquarters, the federal program contractors and Regional lead
program staff who process the applications or oversee the processing.  The database is
maintained on EPA servers at the National Computer Center (NCC) located in Research
Triangle Park (RTF), North Carolina.  Access to the database is granted by the Lead,
Heavy Metals, and Inorganics Branch (LHMTB) in NPCD. Overall maintenance of the
database and periodic improvements are handled by a contractor, currently HeiTech
Corporation, located in Landover, Maryland.  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.

RRP firms: As of October, 2009 firms apply for certification through EPA.  However, as
States become authorized to administer their own RRP programs, States will be
responsible for the authorization of firms in their state. EPA will  collect data on the
numbers of firms certified in each authorized state as part of the Agency's oversight of
authorized programs through semi-annual reports from grantees.

Methods and Assumptions: Processing abatement applications- 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.

RRP firms: The above methods and assumptions apply to the lead abatement program.
On March 31, 2008, EPA issued a new rule (Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
Rule or RRP rule) aimed at protecting children from lead-based paint hazards. The rule
requires contractors and construction professionals that work in pre-1978 housing or
child-occupied facilities to follow lead-safe work practice standards to reduce potential
exposure to dangerous levels of lead for children in places they frequent.  In April, 2009,
training providers may begin applying to EPA for accreditation to provide renovator or
dust sampling technician training. Persons seeking certification as renovators or dust
sampling technicians may take accredited training as soon as it is available. In October,
2009, firms may begin applying to EPA for certification to conduct renovations.
Beginning in  April, 2010, renovations in target (pre-1978) housing and child-occupied
facilities must be conducted by certified renovation firms, using renovators with
accredited training, and following the work practice requirements of the rule.

For 2011, EPA will be reviewing and adjusting performance measures for both the
abatement program and the RRP program as appropriate.

Suitability:  Processing abatement applications:  This measure tracks EPA Headquarters
and Regional effort in processing lead-based paint certification and refund applications
for the abatement program. 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.

RRP firms: This measure tracks total impact of the RRP regulation via establishment of a
cadre of certified firms available for Remodeling work throughout the country. In
October, 2009, firms may begin applying to EPA for certification to conduct renovations.
Beginning in  April, 2010, renovations in target (pre-1978) housing and child-occupied
facilities must be conducted by certified renovation firms, using renovators with
accredited training, and following the work practice requirements of the rule.

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," November 2008). Like the 2003 QMP, it
will ensure the standards and procedures are applied to this effort.  In addition, NPCD has
an approved Quality Management Plan in place, dated July 2008.  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: Processing abatement applications: Applications that were returned
to the applicant or withdrawn by the applicant are not captured in the database queries
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. Efforts are currently being made to
automate this report.

RRP firms: Data are estimates  from firm certification applications received either directly
by EPA or through EPA authorized State programs and reported to EPA Regional offices.

Error Estimate: Processing abatement applications: There is little or no sampling error
in this performance measure, because it is based on a census of all applicable records.

RRP firms: Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and therefore
error estimates are not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  The FLPP database is currently undergoing
improvements to track individual certifications and training provider accreditations for
the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) program.

As additional states report RRP firms' data to EPA Regional offices, we will consider
automating this process through the addition of the Regional Annual Commitment
System (ACS) measure.  This may not be needed until 2012 or future years.

References: 1) Quality Management Plan for National Program Chemicals Division,
June 2008; 2) FLPP database documentation; 3) URL for Applications and Instructions,
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/traincert.htm.
FY 2012 Performance Measures: Ensure Transparency of Chemical Health and
Safety Information

    •   Percentage of CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and
       challenges as appropriate as they are submitted.
    •   Percentage of historical CBI claims in health and safety studies reviewed and
       challenged, as appropriate.

-------
Performance Databases: None

Data Sources:  Data are provided by EPA Headquarters Staff.  Historical data used to
identify CBI H&S Data will come from staff and contractor maintained internal
databases.

Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:  This performance measure supports EPA's
strategic measure through 2015 to make all health and safety  studies available to the
public for chemicals in commerce, to the extent allowed by law. For pesticides, EPA will
continue to make risk assessments and supporting information available through its long
standing Public Participation Process.

The baseline assumes that between January 21, 2010 and the  enactment of TSCA, 21,994
CBI cases with TSCA health and safety information were submitted for chemicals
potentially in commerce. In recent years, hundreds of such cases have been submitted
annually.

To achieve this measure, EPA must complete the following actions for new and historical
submissions by the end of 2015: 1) determine if a challenge to the CBI claim is
warranted; 2) execute the challenge; and 3) where legally defensible, declassify the
information claimed as CBI.

OPPT will maintain  a CBI declassification tracking system.  It will include the records
identified for review, date of receipt, review status, claim validation, letter or call sent,
2.204(d)(2) Action, declassification status.  For chemicals in  8(e) fillings the system will
also track if the chemical name has process or portion of mixture information and if it is
claimed as research and development (R&D) or as a Pesticide.

Health and safety (H&S) information differs greatly in complexity and consequently the
declassification may occur rapidly in some areas but take longer than others to reach
attainment.

QA/QC Procedures: EPA staff will ensure the number of H&S studies reviewed is
equal to or less than  the total number of H&S studies received.

Data Quality Review:  Same as QA/QC procedures.

Data Limitations:
       •  Some archived data may have been lost or damaged.
       •  The DTS database does not differentiate between types of CBI claims, so
          some studies tracked in the DTS system may, in theory, already be public.
       •  It may be difficult or impossible to contact the original submitter for old
          submissions as the submitter may be deceased; the company may no longer
          exist; the company may have changed names; or the company or submitter
          may have no record of having submitted such H&S information.

-------
       •  Some submissions may be redundant due to overlap in processing.
       •  Other limitations expected.

Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been
made during data entry.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Data elements used to track the de-classification
studies will consist of new process-specific elements input by reviewers and elements
traditionally associated with studies that were input to OPPT databases.  The
declassification tracking system is currently under construction.

References: None.

GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2

FY 2012 Performance Measures: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental
Stewardship

    •   Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants
    •   Gallons of water conserved by P2 program participants
    •   Business, institutional and government cost reduced from P2 practices by P2
       program participants
    •   Metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced, conserved, or
       offset by P2 program participants
    •   Energy savings per dollar invested in the Federal Electronics Challenge
       (FEC) program. (Efficiency)

Suitability:  The five annual outcome measures  have corresponding long term goals
identified in EPA's draft 2010-2015 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.  The efficiency measure relates  portions of the associated outcomes with
associated program costs, providing suitable indicators  of program management
effectiveness.

The annual rate of results for the annual outcome measures is calculated by adding new
annual results and recurring annual results to get the sum.  New results are ones that
appear for the first time from a particular activity. Recurring results are those that
reappear in subsequent years from the same particular activity. Based on 2008 feedback
from the Science Advisory Board,9'10 the P2 Program determined it is appropriate to
count recurring results for a pre-defined amount  of time (not indefinitely). As covered in
the "Recurring Result Duration"  subheading below, each component of the P2 Program
has determined an appropriate and reasonable timeframe to count the recurring benefits
9http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.nsf/3F4214C1239651BC852574AD003FC2FO/$File/Charge
+for+Pollution+Prevention+Program+Measures+9-3-08+Meeting.pdf
10http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F6A39F03493E4EA38525750C0074E448/$File/EPA-SAB-
09-005-unsigned.pdf

-------
of its program interventions and adheres to these time durations. These timeframes are
inclusive of first year results.

Components of the Agency's Pollution Prevention Program that report an annual rate of
results are: Green Chemistry (GC); Design for the Environment (DfE); Green
Engineering (GE); P2 Technical Assistance; Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
(P2Rx); Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP); and Green Suppliers Network
(GSN)TEnergy, the Economy, and the Environment (E3). Each operates under the
principles of the Pollution Prevention Act and works with program partners and
beneficiaries to prevent pollution and extend the life of resources, from a lifecycle
perspective, in the daily operations of program beneficiaries.  Program beneficiaries
include government agencies, businesses, manufacturers, nonprofit organizations, and
individuals.

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 information on the qualitative
and quantitative environmental benefits and economic benefits that alternative green
chemistry technologies offer. The database was  also designed to track the quantity of
hazardous substances eliminated as well as water and energy  saved through
implementation of alternative technologies. Green chemistry technology nominations are
received up to December 31 of the year proceeding the reporting year, and it normally
takes 6-12 months to enter new technologies into the database.

Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE has a spreadsheet for all of its programs (i.e.,
Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame Retardant Alternatives, the
Formulator Program, the Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI), and Auto
Refmishing. The 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 greenhouse gas emissions, 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 reduced,
gallons of water conserved, dollars saved, and metric tons of carbon  dioxide (CO2)
emissions eliminated.

P2 Technical Assistance: EPA has developed a second-generation P2 grants database,
"P2 Grants Plus," to organize storage and retrieval of predictive and actual data submitted
to EPA on P2 grant results. The database also stores and retrieves data on planned and
actual measurement methodologies. The earlier  database, GranTrack, stored and retrieved
primarily output results from P2 grants, whereas P2 Grants Plus tracks quantified
outcome results year-over-year on a single "spreadsheet" per  grant, and date stamps all

-------
modifications for version control. Regional staff access to the database may be as early
as Winter 2010, grantee access for data entry may be available in 2011, and public read-
only access for grant results may come in 2012. In the interim, Regions are using a
standardized spreadsheet to track, manage, and report results from P2 and Source
Reduction grants. End-of-year grant data are available to the public on EPA's P2 website

Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx): P2Rx is comprised of 8 regional P2
Information Centers which supply information products and training for local and state
technical assistance providers and businesses. P2Rx centers train and help states and
localities to enter their grant and non-grant P2 results data in the centers' database
modules. These modules feed the data into a central National P2 Results System
database. Over 30  state-level P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of Agreements
to provide data.

Green Suppliers Network (GSN) and Energy, Economy, and the Environment (E3)): EPA
has the benefit of NIST's Customer Relationship Management (CRM) database, which
the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (NIST MEP) uses to collect
NIST and EPA performance metrics for the MEP/GSN/E3 programs. MEP headquarters
enters data into the CRM on economic and environmental potential outcomes from
technical assistance providers conducting facility reviews. These data include the value
of environmental impact savings identified, energy and water conservation opportunities
identified, water and air release reduction opportunities identified, hazardous waste
reduction opportunities identified, toxic/hazardous chemical use reduction opportunities
identified, as well as, any actual results achieved in these  areas.

Environmentally Preferable Products  (EPP): Results for Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing (EPP) come from the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC) and the Electronic
Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT).   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 (EEBC) to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy
conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis.   Manufacturers of
EPEAT registered products provide collective data on annual sales of EPEAT-registered
products to the Green Electronics Council (GEC). The EPP team obtains this data from
the GEC, runs these sales data through the  EEBC to calculate pounds of hazardous
pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on
an annual basis. FY 2010 data will be collected for  the FEC in January 2011 and for
EPEAT in April 2011.

Data Sources: GC: Industry and academia sponsors 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.

-------
DfE:  The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the project. 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 and materials/equipment suppliers. For SDSI greenhouse gases (GHGs),
industry partners will provide data on the amount of GHG emissions reduced through
partner activities.

GE: Data come from sources and partners including the regions, academia and industry.
For example, for the GE activities related to the pharmaceutical industry, data will be
supplied by individual companies or sites and other partners from the regions and
academia. A pilot project with Region 2 and pharmaceutical operating facilities and
members of the Puerto Rico Manufacturer's Association will apply GE practices and
measure their process changes through a GlaxoSmithKline/North Carolina State
University (GSK-NCSU) model.

P2 Technical Assistance: The sources of regional data are P2 Grant and Source
Reduction grant reports, follow-up conversations with grantees and sub-grantees,
occasional site visits, and reports from program partners engaged in non-grant regional
projects.

P2Rx: Sources of output data are P2Rx center grant reports submitted to EPA. These
reports include results from Center web-based customer satisfaction surveys, pre and post
testing of training audiences, follow-up services, and longer-term case studies.  Sources
of outcome measure data are the States that enter data into the P2 Results System
database.

GSN/E3: The source of P2-related data is the technical assistance provider reviewing the
facility. This professional provides an estimate of the potential reductions and savings
achievable at the facility being reviewed.  This person is usually an environmental expert
from the state environmental agency or its designee. The NIST MEP Center
representative enters this estimated data into the CRM database. Under the terms of their
Department of Commerce (DOC) grants,  MEP Centers follow DOC data collection
requirements.

EPP:  For FEC, the data source is federal partners.  For EPEAT, the data source is
manufacturers of EPEAT registered electronic products.  Energy savings per dollar
invested in FEC are calculated by comparing energy savings data to FEC program
resource data that  are housed in a central OPPT finance database.

Methods and Assumptions: GC: The information from the nominations is collected and
tracked directly through internal record-keeping systems. The performance data, while
collected by individual  centers, is acceptable 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 the 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.  For SDSI GHGs, partner-provided
data on GHG emissions reductions will be aggregated to determine the total reduction in
GHG emissions achieved through the Program.

GE: The information (e.g. solvent stream data) will be supplied by individual companies
or sites and/or other partners from the regions or academia. The GlaxoSmithKline's
North Carolina State University (GSK/NCSU) models will utilize input information from
pilot companies to calculate environmental benefits. The pilot companies, in
collaboration with the GSK/NCSU model developers and the GE Program will also
collectively review these materials for any information that could be used as business
case studies and other resource materials.

P2 Technical Assistance: Regions will be using the new Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Calculator, revised P2 Cost Savings Calculator, and new Gallons-to-Pounds Converter
tools designed by the P2 Program for regional use. Regions and grantees attended 2009
and 2010 training webinars on the tools. Assumptions used to convert commodity and
other units into environmental benefits and cost savings are described in the tools
themselves. The GHG tool was reviewed by an expert panel in  2009. These tools help
calculate outcome results and can be named as a grantee's planned and actual
measurement methodology in the P2 Grants Plus  database. The  Program assumes that
grantees and Regions enter accurate data in the calculator tools.

P2Rx:  The P2 Program applies a 10% methodology to State-reported non-grant P2
results. It is assumed that P2 Program-sponsored training, information products, and
source reduction methodologies comprise a resource that enhances overall state P2
results, above and beyond the scope of specific grant projects. After consulting with
States, EPA settled on 10% of non-grant results as a reasonable  amount to attribute to the
extended sphere of national P2 Program influence.  The Program assumes that States
accurately report their non-grant P2 results data to the P2Rx centers, and that the centers
accurately report these data to the Program.

GSN/E3: The program assumes that partner facilities report actual data accurately to
NIST MEP headquarters, that MEP and State technical assistance providers make
accurate estimates of potential P2 results if projects are implemented, and that NIST MEP
headquarters accurately aggregates the data before sharing them with EPA. The program
assumes that many partner  facilities will choose not to submit any actual P2 outcome data
to maintain confidentiality  and that facility partners will not accept NIST MEP
headquarters sharing any non-aggregated potential or actual P2  data with EPA.

-------
To accommodate facility preferences for confidentiality, the Program uses an
implementation-rate methodology to calculate and report results.  Based on actual results
reported in the Michigan multiple-facility projects, the Program assumes the following
GSN P2-cost savings implementation rates, assuming energy-related savings occur at a
higher rate and represent a larger share of total savings  (2010, 30%; 2011, 32%; 2012,
34%; 2013, 36%, 2014, 38%; and, 2015, 40%). Also based on the Michigan project, the
Program assumes the following GSN energy-based (MTCO2e) implementation rates
(2010, 35%; 2011, 37%; 2012,  39%; 2013, 41%; 2014,  43%; and 2015, 45%) and the
following implementation rates for other environmental projects, taking into account the
economy (2010, 15%; 2011, 17%; 2012, 19%; 2013, 21%; 2014, 23%, and 2015, 25%).

The implementation rates for E3 projects are assumed to be higher for energy-based
recommendations because of more highly leveraged resources for implementation and the
higher visibility of E3. Implementation rates used for E3 energy-based recommendations
(related to MTCO2e) are as follows: 2010, 50%; 2011,  52%; 2012, 54%; 2013, 56%;
2015, 58%; and, 2015, 60%. Implementation rates used for E3 cost savings are as
follows: 2010, 41%; 2011, 44%; 2012, 47%; 2013, 49%; 2014, 52%; and, 2015, 55%.
Implementation rates used for E3 other environmental projects are as follows: 2010,
15%; 2011, 20%; 2012, 25%; 2013, 30% 2014, 35%; and 2015, 40%.

EPP:  For FEC, the Program assumes that partners report accurate data. However, FEC
data undergo thorough internal  technical review before  they are run through the EEBC
calculator. For EPEAT, the Program assumes that manufacturers report accurate annual
sales data, and that the GEC accurately reports this data to the EPEAT Program. The
assumptions needed for the EEBC to translate environmental attributes  and activities into
environmental benefits are relatively extensive and are laid out in the EEBC (e.g., the
average lifecycle of a computer, the weight of packaging for a computer, etc.)  The
assumptions were reviewed when the EEBC underwent the original peer review process,
and were reviewed and updated during the development of version 2.0 of the EEBC. For
the efficiency measure, EPA uses a methodology of comparing energy savings to
program investment levels.

Recurring Result Durations: EPP: EPP counts benefit estimates that encompass the
purchase, use, and disposal of green electronics products over a five year product life-
cycle. As additional electronics products are explored,  benefits will be  counted according
to respective product life-cycles.  Efficiency measurements are calculated by comparing
energy savings to program investment levels.

GC:  Benefits are captured from innovative green chemistry technologies and related
processes.  Because of the relatively slow innovation rate and long life-span of
technologies once adopted, the  Green Chemistry Program generally counts results over a
10 year timeframe.  However, in cases where new public information becomes available,
benefits for award-winning technologies are updated. For example, if a technology is
withdrawn from the market, that quantity is no longer counted.  Similarly, if news of an
increased benefit because of increased market penetration becomes available, the
magnitude of the benefit is increased to reflect that change.

-------
GE:  Green Engineering is promoting implementation of solvent reuse and recovery
practices in pharmaceutical companies.  These actions result in both environmental and
economical benefits and will be recurring as facilities will not revert back to former, less
economical practices.  These results will be counted for eight years until these practices
become standard operating practice.

DfE: DfE has many different projects that generate results. The largest of these, the
Formulator Program, is set up to recognize safer products through application of the DfE
label. Partner companies  sign a three-year partnership agreement so these results will be
counted over three years.  The DfE Automotive Refmishing Partnership collaborates with
the Regions on training and compliance assistance workshops that help businesses and
schools implement best practices to reduce air toxics in the workplace and community.
Changes are counted over a five year period to account for the time it takes to provide
training and equipment, improve performance, and standardize new processes. DfE's
Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership and Lead-Free Solder LCA will count results for
seven years. This period was chosen to be consistent with the Modified Accelerated Cost
Recovery System (MACRS) recovery period for similar product types11. DfE's SDSI
GHG will count recurring results for three years. The period was chosen because SDSI
GHG Champions will  also have DfE Formulator Program recognition, where results are
counted for three years.

P2 Technical Assistance:  Regions count recurring results from grant-based and direct
project-based P2 technology  and practice changes because these changes are expected to
be observed for multiple years. The Program is using an average lifetime of equipment,
process, or practice changes as a factor to apply to all results achieved.  The Program has
conducted preliminary bench-marking to ascertain the range of standard expected
lifetimes of the technologies  and practices adopted as a result of Regional action. The
range is wide, and documentation of results varies depending on the nature of the grant
activity.  As a result, the Program is using a conservative four year period for an average
duration  of these technology  and practice changes.

P2Rx:  P2Rx is  counting recurring results and is also using an average lifetime of
equipment, process, or practice changes as a factor to apply to all results achieved.  Due
to the aggregated nature of results reported in the P2 Results Data System, and the
relative lack of transparency  concerning the underlying activities reported in this system,
the Program is taking the  most conservative  approach and counting results for two years.

GSN/E3: EPA counts recurring results from  GSN and E3 facility implementation of
equipment and process changes that are expected to be observed for multiple years. EPA
is using an average lifetime of equipment or process change as a factor to apply to all
GSN and E3 results achieved. Preliminary bench-marking indicates that a six-year
period is an appropriate average lifetime for GSN technology and process changes. In
11 'Couper, J.R., Process Engineering Economics.2003, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 423.
 (see page 180)

-------
the future, EPA may be able to access case-specific data efficiently to determine specific
depreciation rates for equipment and process changes installed.

QA/QC Procedures: All OPPT 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," November 2008), and the programs will
ensure that those standards and procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality
Management Plan is for internal use only.

Data Quality Review:  OPPT responded to OIG recommendations in their January 2009
report "Measuring and Reporting Performance Results for the Pollution Prevention
Program Need Improvement," which found the program deserving of its initial
Moderately Effectively program assessment rating. Recommendations included
developing additional and refining existing measures, establishing more comprehensive
QA/QC procedures, and addressing improvement opportunities

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 HQ and Regional staff to ensure transparency,
reasonableness and accuracy.  For the pharmaceutical project, data will be internally
reviewed by companies and may also be reviewed by model developers.  It is an essential
goal and foundation for this project that this information is transparent, verifiable and
within the public domain.

P2 Technical Assistance: Data undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff before being entered into the aggregate reporting spreadsheet or,
prospectively, the P2 Grants Plus database. Data for projects managed directly by EPA
Regional staff are reviewed by Regional personnel. Standard operating procedures are
being reviewed for additional QA/QC steps.  The program works with the Regional
offices to develop consistent QA procedures, which can be applied at the beginning of the

-------
grant and throughout the life of the grant. For instance, a Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP)-lite guidance was developed and is now in use in several Regional offices.

P2Rx:  The P2Rx centers follow quality assurance project plans for their grants and have
established standard operating procedures for development of web site statistics and
information products. Standard Operations and Procedures are on this web site:
http://www.p2rx.org/AdminInfo/toc.cfm  Data entered into the National P2 Results
system undergo technical screening review by P2Rx centers and EPA Headquarters staff.
The users guide for the P2 Results system is posted on the Internet:
http://www.p2rx.Org/measurement/info/F IN AL_user_guide.pdf

GSN/E3: Data are collected and verified under NIST MEP's QA/QC plan, which guides
the NIST MEP Centers as grantees to the Department of Commerce. Environmental data
are collected under the QA/QC requirements of the state environmental agency
participating in GSN and E3 reviews.  States utilize these data for their own purposes as
well.

EPP: The EEBC underwent internal and external review during their development
phases.  The EEBC was also reviewed and beta-tested during the development of version
2.0. For FEC, instructions and guidelines are provided to partners on how to report data.
Reporting forms are reviewed by EPA staff when they are submitted. For EPEAT,
manufacturers of EPEAT-registered products sign a Memorandum of Understanding in
which they warrant the accuracy of the data they provide.

Data Limitations: GC: Nominations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge
Awards Program are in the public domain. As a result, nominees are often reluctant to
include proprietary information on cost differences or other quantitative benefits.
Because the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge is a voluntary, public program, it
cannot routinely accept or process CBI. If the program stakeholders feel they need
additional information during the judging for the awards program, they can and do ask
EPA to request additional information from the nominee. EPA will then ask the company
to share confidential information with CBI-cleared OPPT staff in order for EPA to
conduct the verification.  Often technologies are nominated before or soon after they
become commercially available. Implemented benefits (those that have occurred due to
the adoption of the nominated technology) are counted separately from potential benefits
that may occur upon future adoption of the technology.

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 submitted data is not clearly quantified and/or
available due to various reasons such as CBI.  However, efforts will be made to minimize
CBI information in working with the facilities to have more generic case studies.  In
these instances,  the data have to be carefully evaluated and considered for reporting.

-------
P2 Technical Assistance: Limitations arise from the variable attention that States and
other grantees pay to collecting data from their reporting sources, data verification, and
other QA/QC procedures.

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.

GSN/E3: Facilities reviewed by NIST MEP and State technical  assistance providers are
often reluctant to have their individual facility opportunity assessments shared with EPA
or to share proprietary information on quantitative benefits with NIST or EPA.  MEP
programs can also vary in the level of detail they report from the facility-level
opportunity assessments (potential results) to MEP Headquarters, where data are
aggregated and then sent to EPA. Although EPA has strengthened the Request for
Proposals requirements for the grantee MEP centers eligible to perform GSN and E3
reviews.

EPP:  FEC has a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting. EPEAT relies on
manufacturers of EPEAT-registered products, and the GEC, for  data reporting.

Error Estimate:  Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and,
therefore, error estimates are not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems:   The new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Calculator
developed for the Regions is widely applicable to all components of the P2 Program.  It
captures reductions from electricity conservation, renewable energy and green power,
stationary sources, fuel specific reductions and substitutions, chemical specific reductions
and substitutions, and process changes.

DfE: DfE has implemented an emissions calculator for the DfE Automotive Refinishing
Partnership.  The emissions reduction calculator computes individual or aggregate
quantities of toxics eliminated and cost savings based on annual material usage (e.g.
gallons of paint) before and after a business switches to best practices or  safer alternative
paint products.  SDSI GHGs will be a new set of results for DfE in FY 2012.  This
Program will focus on encouraging products that reduce the release of GHG emissions

Regional Offices:  The development of new calculators and tools described on page 2
above is enhancing the methodology for measuring and reporting outcome results.

P2Rx:  Centers are developing tracking and user identification approaches to better
characterize the customers using their web site information.  The centers  currently track
customers served through phone calls, emails, trainings and evaluate changes in
awareness, knowledge, and behavior resulting from their services. Standard operating
procedures for these approaches are being developed.

-------
GE: The program is utilizing GlaxoSmithKline/North Carolina State University
GSK/NCSU models (Jimenez-Gonzalex C, Overcash MR and Curzons AD. J. Chemistry
Technology Biotechnology. 71:707-716 (2001) and plans to combine these models with
OPPT tools such as ChemSTEER to accurately utilize inputs from pharmaceutical
companies in the estimation of environmental benefits.

EPP: Version 2.0 of the EEBC was released in March 2009.  These revisions ensure that
the EEBC reflects the best available data related to EPEAT-registered and ENERGY
STAR-qualified products and adds  additional functionality to the EEBC.  A complete list
of revisions is available in the EEBC and it is currently being converted from an Excel
spreadsheet to a Web-based tool, to make it more user friendly.

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
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 EEBC 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.pdfRegional:
http://www. epa.gov/p2/pubs/local. htm
P2RX: P2 Results user guide:
http://www.p2rx.org/measurement/info/FINAL  user guide.pdf
SOPsfor P2RXcenters: http://www.p2rx.org/AdminInfo/toc.cfm
FY 2012 Performance Measure: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental
Stewardship

    •   Percent increased in use of safer chemicals.

Performance Database:  Design for the Environment (DfE) maintains a data collection
spreadsheet for all of its programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics,
Furniture Flame Retardant Alternatives, the Formulator Program, the Safer Detergents
Stewardship Initiative (SDSI),  and Auto Refmishing Best Practices). The content of the
data collection spreadsheet varies by project requirements and needs, but 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 Safer Product Labeling Program tracks performance data as partners move to
safer chemical ingredients in product formulations, based on robust science-based
criteria. Performance data includes pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by
partners, and conversely pounds of safer ingredients.

-------
Data Sources: The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the project. 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 and materials/equipment suppliers. In addition to
performance data, DfE also collects technical data as a basis for any DfE assessment,
which includes proprietary information from partners, compilation of information from
site visits, journal reviews, and development of technical studies as described above.
Reductions per federal dollar invested in the DfE program are calculated by comparing
DfE chemical reduction data to DfE program resource data that are housed in a central
OPPT finance database.

Methods and 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 is aggregated to determine the total use of
safer chemicals achieved through the program. DfE recognized a total of 1,700 products
in 2009. Using company confidential data, DfE estimates that its partner companies are
now using more than 476 million pounds of safer chemicals. Recognizing a 10% year-to-
year increase in DfE products, the 2015 target is expected to reach 843 million pounds.

Suitability:  DfE data tracks increases in the use of safer chemicals indicating upward
trends in the market share. This  measure is a consistent and reliable source for annual
reporting and contributes to the overall strategic plan to increase the use of safer
chemicals.

QA/QC Procedures: OPPT 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," November 2008), and the programs will
ensure that those standards and procedures are  applied to this effort. The Quality
Management Plan is for internal  use only.

Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE before being added to the data
collection spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the
environmental benefits described.

In addition, the DfE Program maintains Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) and
Information Collection Requests (ICRs) for the collection of technical and performance
data, including the following:

       •  Quality Assurance Project Plan:  The Design for the Environment (DfE) Best
          Practices Approach Project; Eastern Research Group, Inc. EPA Contract No.
          EP-W-05-014;

-------
       •   Information Collection Request Supporting Document for EPA's Design for
          the Environment Formulator's Product Recognition Program. EPA ICR No.
          2302.01; OMB Control No. 2070-NEW; June 22, 2009; and
       •   Quality Assurance Project Plan for DfE Wire & Cable and Lifecycle
          Assessment & Industry Study, Abt Associates, Inc. EPA Contract No. EP-W-
          08-10.

Data Quality Review: OPPT has developed an official response to OIG
recommendations published in their January 2009 report "Measuring and Reporting
Performance Results for the Pollution Prevention Program Need Improvement."  Overall,
the report found the program deserving of its initial Moderately Effectively program
assessment rating and includes recommendations such as developing additional and
refining existing measures, establishing more comprehensive QA/QC procedures, and
addressing improvement opportunities.

All P2 programs, including DfE, responded to the OIG recommendations 4.2 and 4.3
 Recommending the P2 Programs implement controls to ensure full implementation of
the Pollution Prevention Quality Management Plan (QMP).  The P2 Program established
a Standard Operating Procedures report to govern its collection, tracking, analyzing, and
publicly reporting of data on environmental and other performance parameters. These
SOPs pertain to the type, format and quality of data to be submitted to the Agency by
partners,  contractors, and program beneficiaries for use in reporting P2 Program
performance.

Data Limitations:  Occasionally, DfE 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.

Error Estimate: Statistical approaches are generally not used across the program and
therefore error estimates are not available.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  DfE has implemented an emissions calculator for the
DfE Automotive Refmishing Partnership. The emissions reduction calculator computes
individual or aggregate quantities of toxics eliminated and cost savings based on annual
material usage (e.g. gallons of paint) before and after a business switches to best practices
or safer alternative paint products.  SDSI GHGs will be a new set  of results for DfE in FY
2012. This program will focus on encouraging products that reduce the release of GHG
emissions.

References:  DfE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/

GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1

FY 2012  Performance Measures:

-------
       Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of air pollutants through
       concluded enforcement actions  Support Taking Action on Climate Change
       and Improving Air Quality
       Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of water pollutants through
       concluded water enforcement actions  Support Protecting America's Waters
       Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of toxics and pesticides through
       concluded enforcement actions. Support Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals
       and Preventing Pollution
       Reduce, treat, or eliminate estimated pounds of hazardous waste through
       concluded enforcement actions. Support Cleaning up Communities and
       Advancing Sustainable Development
       Initiate  civil judicial  and  administrative enforcement cases   Maintain
       Enforcement Presence and Deterrence
       Conclude  civil  judicial and administrative  enforcement cases   Maintain
       Enforcement Presence and Deterrence
Performance Databases:   The Integrated Compliance Information  System Federal
Enforcement  &  Compliance   (ICIS  FE&C)  database  tracks  EPA  judicial  and
administrative civil enforcement actions.

Data Source:  The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in
Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepares after conclusion of
each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS
in 1996 to capture relevant information on the results  and  environmental benefits of
concluded enforcement cases.  The CCDS form consists of 22 specific questions which,
when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how
the case concluded; compliance actions  required for defendant(s); the costs involved;
information on any Supplemental Environmental Project  to be undertaken as part of the
settlement; the  amount and type of any penalties assessed;  and  any  costs recovered
through the action, if applicable.

Methods,  Assumptions and Suitability:  Initiated start  and end dates for civil judicial
and administrative enforcement cases are the key ICIS data fields that create the database
record  for tracking the milestone data associated with each step of a case  from start to
finish.  For enforcement actions resulting in immediate  pollutants reduced, treated, or
eliminated, staff estimates the amount of reduction at the time the enforcement  action
concludes. For enforcement actions resulting in pollutants reduced,  treated,  or eliminated
long-term, staff estimate the reduction for an average year.  EPA  staff use established
statute  methodologies, e.g. Clean Water Act (CWA), to calculate the pollutant reductions
or eliminations.  The  calculation determines the difference between  the current  out of
compliance quantity of pollutants released and the post enforcement action in compliance
quantity of pollutants released.  EPA then converts the difference into standard units of
measure.

-------
QA/QC Procedures:  The ICIS  FE&C  data system  meets Office  of Environmental
Information (OEI) 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 data
calculation methodology.

Data Quality Review:  Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years.

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  semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC has a quarterly data review
process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's enforcement and
compliance information.

Data Limitations:  Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in  CCDS project an
estimate  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 use information available at the time a case settles or an
order is issued.  In some instances, EPA develops and enters this information on pollutant
reduction estimates after the  settlement or during continued discussions  over  specific
plans for  compliance.   Due to the time  required  for EPA to negotiate a settlement
agreement  with a  defendant,  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  reduced   or  eliminated is  prudently  underestimated  based  on  CCDS
information.   EPA  also bases the pollutant estimates on  the  expectation that the
defendant/respondent implements the negotiated settlement agreement.

Error Estimate: Not available

New & Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational  in June 2002. This
data  system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system
but has an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities.
Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is  being phased-in to ICIS FE&C as the database of record
for the  CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.  ICIS-
NPDES includes  all  federal and  state  enforcement, compliance  and permitting  data.
States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit
Compliance System (PCS). States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance
with current data and system capabilities.  The migration process is projected  to be
completed in FY2013. As a state's data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too does
the state's NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data.  As of June 2009,  ICIS-
NPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability
to  accept electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities.
This new electronic data reporting  functionality  is expected to increase the quality and

-------
timeliness of the  DMR data in ICIS-NPDES.   To date ICIS-NPDES  is the national
system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of
Mexico facilities in Region 6.

References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life
Cycle Management Guidance, (TRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994,
reference Chapter  17 for Life Cycle Management); 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.

FY2012 Performance Measure:

   •   Conduct  federal  inspections  and  evaluations   Maintain  Enforcement
       Presence and Deterrence

Performance Databases:  The Integrated Compliance Information  System Federal
Enforcement  &  Compliance   (ICIS  FE&C)   database  tracks  EPA  judicial  and
administrative civil enforcement actions.

Data Source:  The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in
Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepares after conclusion of
each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS
in 1996 to capture relevant information on the  results  and environmental benefits of
concluded enforcement cases.  The CCDS  form consists of 22  specific questions which,
when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved;  information on how
the case  concluded; compliance actions required for defendant(s);  the costs  involved;
information on any Supplemental Environmental  Project to be  undertaken as part of the
settlement;  the  amount and type of any penalties assessed; and any  costs recovered
through the action, if applicable.

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.

QA/QC Procedures:   The ICIS FE&C data system meets Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) 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 data
calculation methodology.

Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years.

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 semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC has a quarterly data review
process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's enforcement and
compliance information.

Data Limitations:  Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS  project an
estimate  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 use information available at the time a case settles or an
order is issued.  In some instances, EPA develops and enters this information on pollutant
reduction estimates after  the settlement or during continued discussions over specific
plans for  compliance.  Due to the time  required  for EPA to negotiate a  settlement
agreement  with a defendant,  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  reduced or  eliminated is  prudently  underestimated  based  on  CCDS
information.   EPA also  bases the pollutant  estimates on  the  expectation that the
defendant/respondent implements the negotiated settlement agreement.

Error Estimate: Not available

New & Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This
data system has all  of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system
but has an additional  feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities.
Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being phased-in to ICIS FE&C as the database of record
for the  CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. ICIS-
NPDES includes  all federal and  state  enforcement, compliance  and permitting  data.
States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit
Compliance System (PCS).  States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance
with current data and system  capabilities.  The migration process is projected to be
completed in FY2013. As a state's data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too does
the state's NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data.  As of June 2009, ICIS-
NPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability
to  accept electronic Discharge Monitoring  Report (DMR) data directly from facilities.
This new electronic data reporting  functionality  is expected to increase the quality and
timeliness of the  DMR data in ICIS-NPDES.  To date ICIS-NPDES is the  national
system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of
Mexico facilities in Region 6.

-------
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, 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.

FY2012 Performance Measure:

   •   Review the overall  compliance status of 100% of the open consent decrees
       Maintain Enforcement Presence and Deterrence

Performance Databases:  The Integrated Compliance Information  System Federal
Enforcement  &  Compliance   (ICIS  FE&C)  database  tracks  EPA  judicial  and
administrative civil enforcement actions.

Data Source:  The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in
Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS),  which Agency staff prepares  after conclusion of
each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS
in 1996 to capture relevant information on the  results  and environmental benefits  of
concluded enforcement cases.  The CCDS  form consists of 22  specific questions which,
when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how
the case  concluded; compliance actions required for defendant(s);  the costs  involved;
information on any Supplemental Environmental  Project to be  undertaken as part of the
settlement; the  amount and type of any penalties assessed;  and any costs recovered
through the action, if applicable.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The consent decree tracking measure applies
to all open, non-Superfund, non-bankruptcy, judicial consent decrees,  coded in ICIS with
the Enforcement Action Types "Civil Judicial Actions," "Pre-Referral Negotiations," and
"Collection Actions,"  entered by the courts in FY 2007 and  later.  For  each consent
decree, the Regions will track up to four milestones, depending on the content  of  the
consent decrees and the length  of their compliance schedules.   Three of the milestones
address specific, one-time events to be tracked in ICIS as Compliance Schedule Events:
Pay Required Penalty Amount in Full; Complete  Required  Supplemental Environmental
Project (SEP); Achieve Final Compliance With All Obligations Under This Order. The
fourth milestone addresses overall consent decree compliance  status.  It applies only to
consent decrees with compliance schedules requiring more than three years to complete.
The Regions are expected to review the overall compliance status of such consent decrees
beginning no later than on the first 3-year anniversary of their entry dates and repeat  the
reviews at least once every three years from the dates of the most recent reviews until  the

-------
consent decrees are closed.  Beginning in FY 2010 for end-of-year reporting  and FY
2011  for mid-year reporting, OECA will collect the  data specified in this guidance
through the mid-year and end-of-year certification process. The corresponding reports
will be generated directly from ICIS.

QA/QC Procedures:   The  ICIS  FE&C  data system  meets  Office of Environmental
Information  (OEI) 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 data
calculation methodology.

Data  Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) prepares Quality Management Plans (QMPs) every five years.

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  semiannual executive certification of
the overall accuracy of ICIS information. Additionally, OC  has a quarterly data review
process to ensure timely input, data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's enforcement and
compliance information.

Data Limitations: None

Error Estimate: Not available

New & Improved Data or Systems: ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This
data system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system
but has an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities.
Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being  phased-in to ICIS FE&C  as the database of record
for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES) program.  ICIS-
NPDES includes  all federal and  state  enforcement, compliance  and permitting data.
States are currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit
Compliance System (PCS).  States enter data in phases in ICIS-NPDES in accordance
with current data and system capabilities.  The migration process is projected  to be
completed in FY2013.  As a state's data migrates from PCS to  ICIS-NPDES, so too does
the state's NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data.  As of June 2009,  ICIS-
NPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability
to accept electronic Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities.
This new electronic data reporting functionality  is expected to increase the quality and
timeliness of the  DMR  data in ICIS-NPDES.   To  date ICIS-NPDES is  the  national
system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of
Mexico facilities in Region 6.

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, 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.

FY 2012 Performance Measures:  Maintain Enforcement Presence and Deterrence

    •   Percent of criminal cases having the most significant health, environmental,
       and deterrence impacts
    •   Percent of criminal cases with charges filed
    »   Maintain conviction rate for criminal defendants
    »   Maintain percent rate for criminal cases with individual defendants

Performance Databases: The Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) stores criminal
enforcement data in an enforcement-sensitive database which contains historical data on
all  criminal  enforcement  prosecutions. The data used  for  all criminal  enforcement
performance measures are in the CCRS database.

Data  Source: Data entered into the  CCRS for the four FY2012 criminal  enforcement
performance measures comes from the Investigative Activity Report (IAR) which tracks
a criminal investigation from the  time EPA opens a case.  The IAR indicates when EPA
seeks prosecution by the Department of Justice  (DOJ) (e.g.,  an indictment by a grand
jury) or when DOJ obtains a criminal conviction (i.e., the defendant will plead guilty or is
convicted by a judge or jury). Case closing checklists occur when a case concludes.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  The methodology for the criminal  enforcement
measures "Percent of criminal cases with charges filed," and "Conviction percentage rate
for criminal defendants," employed a five year analysis  (FY2006-2010) to develop the
baseline and  FY2012 target. The methodology  for the criminal enforcement measures
"Percent of criminal  cases with individual defendants" employed a three year analysis
(FY2008-2010) to develop the baseline and FY2012 target.

The methodology for the measure "percent  of criminal cases with the most significant
health, environmental and deterrence impact" employed a review of the current criminal
enforcement docket to develop the baseline and FY2012 target.  The cases are analyzed
and scored on a variety of case attributes describing the range, complexity and quality of
the criminal  enforcement docket. Cases  are then entered into one of four categories
("tiers") depending upon factors such as the human health (e.g., death, serious injury) and
environmental impacts, the nature of the pollutant and its release into the environment,
and violator characteristics (e.g.,  repeat violator, size and locations(s) of the regulated
entity).  The measure  only reflects the percentage  of cases in the upper two tiers.

-------
QA/QC Procedures:  All criminal enforcement special agents receive training on the
accurate completion of IAR reports and the entry of criminal case data into the CCRS.
Quarterly case management reviews by senior management assure the accuracy of the
data contained in  the  reports.  In  addition,  quarterly reviews  by  senior  criminal
enforcement managers of all cases on the criminal  enforcement docket will  ensure the
correct application of three methodologies for identifying cases that meet the  criteria for
the measure identifying the most significant criminal cases (tier one and tier two cases).
The Criminal Investigations Division  (CID)  has a process in place for document control
and records management.

Each  office within  the Office  of Enforcement  and Compliance Assurance  (OECA)
prepares  Quality  Management Plans (QMPs).   QMPs  for the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics  and Training (OCEFT) and its Criminal Investigation Division
(CID), were submitted to the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in July 2009
and are under review.

Data  Quality Review:  OCEFT's Center for Strategic Environmental Enforcement
(CSEE) reviews all criminal enforcement data used for compiling performance measures
by comparing data entered into the CCRS from the field offices with the final  J&C order
prepared by the U.S. District Court at the time a defendant is sentenced.

Data  Limitations:  One possible  limitation  on the calculation of  the "recidivism"
measure is  the difficulty to identify all appropriate and relevant business relationships
among possible repeat  violators. It is possible that the information collected during a
criminal prosecution may not obviously "tie"  subsequent and initial violators together,
especially for corporations that have multiple components or for individuals who may try
to hide their ownership status of small businesses that violate the law.

The only other possible data limitation for  either measure  — likely to occur only very
infrequently - is a successful appeal of convictions (that can take several years  to move
through the legal system) which requires a recalculation of results for a given fiscal year.

Error Estimate: Not available.

New & Improved Data or Systems:  A new feature of the Criminal Case Reporting
System includes a new tab that consolidates information from the Case Closing Checklist
and the CCRS to incorporate data elements previously gathered through  the criminal
enforcement Case Conclusion Data Sheets.

References:  Internal EPA database; non-enforcement sensitive data available  to the
public through the Freedom of Information  Act (FOIA).  J&C Orders available through
the U.S. District Courts.

FY  2012  Performance  Measures:   Support  Cleaning  up  Communities and
Advancing Sustainable Development

-------
   •   Address  all  Statute  of  Limitations  cases  for  Superfund   sites  with
       unaddressed total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000
   •   Reach  a  settlement  or  take  an enforcement action before the start of a
       remedial  action at  99  percent of  Superfund  sites having viable, liable
       responsible parties other than the federal government

Performance Database: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) is an automated, fully modernized EPA
system that  is used to  capture  and report on all  essential program  and  enforcement
performance information. CERCLIS is the Superfund program's primary repository of
program, enforcement planning,  and accomplishment data.  CERCLIS  contains national
removal, site assessment, remedial,  Federal facility, and enforcement program data for
hazardous waste sites.

Data Source:  EPA's regional offices  are responsible for entering detailed site-specific
information  into  CERCLIS,  e.g., the  status  of  cleanups,  target and  measure
accomplishments, and  resource planning and  use information.   EPA  Headquarters
routinely pulls and  reviews CERCLIS data in order  to effectively manage the Superfund
program, evaluate progress towards  reaching program performance goals and measures,
and to report Superfund  program  accomplishments to internal and external stakeholders.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There are no analytical or statistical methods
used to derive this information.  Headquarters pulls accomplishment data associated with
targets  and  measures from CERCLIS on a  quarterly basis using SCAP (Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan) and Enforcement reports that provide  summary
and detailed  site information.

QA/QC  Procedures:   To  ensure  data accuracy  and control, various administrative
controls have been established within the Superfund Program Implementation Manual
(SPEVI).  The SPEVI is a planning document that defines program management priorities,
procedures,  and  practices for  the Superfund  Program.    The  SPEVI also  provides
standardized and common  definitions for program  planning and reporting for  the
following areas:
1.  Report Specifications are contained in CERCLIS reports indicating how reported data
are pulled and displayed;
2.  A Coding Guide contains technical instructions for data users such as Regional
Information Management Coordinators (EVICs), program personnel, data owners, and
data input personnel;
3.  Quick Reference Guides (QRG) are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database
and provide detailed data entry instructions for most  CERCLIS modules;
4.  Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment (SCAP) and Enforcement reports are
used to track, budget, plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and
measures; and 5.  A historical lockout feature is provided in CERCLIS to ensure that any
changes to past fiscal year data can only be made by  approved personnel and are recorded
within a Change Log report.  These controls are contained in the Superfund Program

-------
Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal Year 2008/2009
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.htm).

CERCLIS operation and development is managed by the following administrative control
and 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 to the above, specific controls are in place for system design, data conversion,
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 2012 Performance  Measure:     Support  Cleaning  up  Communities  and
Advancing Sustainable Development
   •   Obtain commitments to clean up contaminated soil and groundwater media
       as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement
       actions.

Performance  Database: The  Integrated  Compliance  Information  System Federal
Enforcement  &  Compliance  (ICIS  FE&C)  database tracks EPA judicial  and
administrative civil enforcement actions.

-------
Data Source:  The ICIS FE&C database collects essential environmental results data in
Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS), which Agency staff prepares after conclusion of
each civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement action. EPA implemented the CCDS
in 1996 to capture relevant information on the results  and environmental  benefits of
concluded enforcement cases.  The CCDS form consists  of 22 specific questions which,
when completed, describe specifics of the case; the facility involved; information on how
the case concluded; compliance actions  required for  defendant(s); the  costs involved;
information on any Supplemental Environmental Project to be undertaken as part of the
settlement; the  amount and type of  any penalties  assessed;  and any costs recovered
through the action, if applicable.

Methods,  Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions resulting in immediate
pollutants  reduced, treated, or eliminated,  staff estimates the amount of reduction at the
time the enforcement action concludes. For enforcement actions resulting in pollutants
reduced, treated, or eliminated long-term, the estimate is based on a 3-year average
excluding  outliers with values that are  3 times the standard deviation.

QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS  FE&C data system meets  Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) 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 data
calculation methodology.

Data Quality Review: Each office within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) prepares a quality Management Plan (QMPs) every five years.  The
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan was
approved October 2, 2007.

Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS are based on
entered judicial CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement actions.

Error Estimate: NA

New/Improved Data or Systems:  ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2002. This
data system has all of the functionality of the legacy Civil Enforcement Docket system
but has  an additional feature for tracking EPA enforcement and  compliance activities.
Additionally, ICIS-NPDES is being phased-in to ICIS FE&C  as the database of record
for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.  ICIS-
NPDES includes  all  federal  and state enforcement,  compliance  and permitting data.
States are  currently migrating to ICIS NPDES from the  legacy data system, the Permit
Compliance  System (PCS). States  enter data in phases  in ICIS-NPDES in  accordance
with current data and system  capabilities.  The migration process is projected  to be
completed in FY2013. As a state's data migrates from PCS to ICIS-NPDES,  so too does
the state's NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. As of June 2009,  ICIS-
NPDES has a new feature that did not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability
to accept electronic Discharge  Monitoring Report (DMR) data directly from facilities.

-------
This new electronic data reporting functionality is expected to increase the quality and
timeliness of the  DMR data in ICIS-NPDES.   To date ICIS-NPDES is the national
system of record for 31 states (including DC, VI, PR), 2 tribes, 9 territories and Gulf of
Mexico facilities in Region 6.

References: Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures: Data Quality: Life
Cycle Management Guidance, (TRM Policy Manual 2100, dated September 28, 1994,
reference Chapter  17 for Life Cycle Management), OSRE's Quality Management Plan.
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS

FY 2012 Performance Measure:

       • Percent of GS employees hired within 80 calendar days. (Goal is 25
        percent)
       • Percent of GS employees (Other than DEU) hired within 80 calendar days.
        (Goal is 25 percent)

Performance Database: EPA's Human Resources Activity and Communication
Tracking System (HRACTS) is an in-house, lotus-notes based system designed to track
and monitor HR workload including recruitment actions at the Agency's Shared Service
Centers. HRACTS also tracks other HR workload activity including awards,
reassignment, etc.; tracks EPA's status towards achieving OPM's original 80-day hiring
goal for delegated examining recruitment actions and provides status reports to
customers.  The servicing human resources personnel at EPA's 3 Shared Service Centers
enter data into the system.  This data is tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year,
quarterly, and as-needed basis.

Data Source: Office of Human Resources (OHR) HRACTS.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:  OPM's 80-day hiring model is designed  only
to assess the time to hire new non-federal hires through the delegated examining
recruitment actions only, therefore, not all Agency recruitment actions need to be
reported as part of this performance measure. However, the President's May 2010
"Hiring Reform Initiatives" memo seeks agencies to improve the timeliness of "all"
hiring actions and in particular hiring actions for Mission Critical Occupations and
commonly-filled positions. Agency specific reporting requirements for time to hire
statistics are uncertain and not yet finalized. HRACTS can track the time throughout
EPA's hiring process from the time a hiring request is initiated until the employee comes
on board. HRACTS has multiple date fields for inputting the date for each step in the
hiring process. HRACTS is continually undergoing changes and modifications to meet
the constant clarification and unique needs of the 80-day  end-to-end hiring model.
HRACTS has been revised to track the date for each step in the hiring process, while
meeting the diverse demands for  easy access by Agency-wide managers to track the
status of hiring actions. HRACTS reports are being revised to provide organizations with

-------
in-depth information on the status of their pending recruitment actions in a secure and
controlled environment.  The system is being refined to notify applicants of the status of
their vacancy application throughout the hiring process and also provide managers with a
link to survey their perspective of the overall hiring process.  Past HRACTS limitations
have prevented clear delineation of the various types of recruitment actions (e.g. merit
promotion, delegated examining) as input fields are just now being incorporated into the
system and being populated.  This distinction is important as the 80-day end-to-end hiring
process is designed to track only new non-federal hires whereas current baseline
estimates reflect all hiring actions.  Other improvements include better reporting
templates to track trends and anomalies along the hiring process timeline. Further system
enhancements may be needed to track hiring timeliness for MCOs and commonly-filled
positions to meet the President's Hiring Reform Initiatives.

QA/QC Procedures: HRACTS tracks hiring process activity from the time the request
for a recruitment action is requested until the selected candidate enters on-board for duty.
Agency-wide, Office-level, and SSC reports can be prepared on an annual, quarterly, or
selected time period basis. Manager access was made available to better enable tracking
of the status of their individual recruitment actions.

Data Quality Reviews:  SSC / OHR staff review and analyze the reports to determine
trends and assess workload.  SSC  staff review and validate the data, identify anomalies or
data-entry errors, make corrections,  and provide the updated information so that the
system's reports can be current and accurate. Agency managers can be provided with
system access to further enhance data integrity. Questions about the data or resolution of
data issues are frequently resolved through discussion and consultation with the SSC and
OHR.

Data Limitations: HRACTS is not integrated with the Agency's People Plus System,
the Agency's official personnel system, therefore, discrepancies may arise such as the
total  number of hires. While HRACTS can track by the type of recruitment action (DEU,
MP,  etc), HRACTS is currently not  capable of tracking by occupational series (e.g.
Mission Critical Occupations and  commonly-filled positions).

Error Estimate: N/A

New/Improved Data or Systems: In FY08, EPA implemented HRACTS a new
standardized action tracking system across the 3 new HR  Shared Service Centers.
Changes and modifications are ongoing to further meet the Agency's needs for improved
tracking and reporting.  This tracking system will facilitate further improvement in EPA's
end-to-end time-to-hire process.

References: HRACTS
                    EPA's Human Capital Management

-------
                    FY12 Budget Performance Measures
FY 2012
Performance
Measure
Percent of GS
employees hired
within 80 calendar
days







Baseline / Actual
FY08 - 58 %
(Baseline - All hires) *

FY09 - 10.7 % (DEU hires)
- 13. 9% (All Hires)

FY10Q1-Q2 - 4.2 % (DEU hires)
- 16.0% (All Hires)



FY 2009
Target
60 % *

per
FY08
HCMR






FY 2010
Target
20%

per
FY09
HCMR






FY2011
Target
23%
(Revised)

A 60 %
target was
established
in FY08
for the
FY11
budget
request *
FY 2012
Target
25%










OPM's original End-to-End 80-day hiring initiative focused on the Agency's entire hiring
process from the time a hiring request is initiated until the employee comes on board; the
80-day hiring initiative focused on those non-federal employees hired through the
delegated examining recruitment process.

In May 2010, the "President Hiring Reform Initiatives" sought improved government-
wide hiring timelines and a broader hiring focus on "all hires" and in particular Mission
Critical Occupations hires; however, the metric has not been finalized.

This measure will track the hiring timeliness for non-federal applicants using the
delegated examining recruitment process. However, this measure may be modified to
coincide with agency reporting requirements per the President's Hiring Reform Initiative
which focuses on all hires or for selected types of hires (MCO and commonly filled
positions).  Therefore, supplemental information will also be provided for "All Hires"
and modified as needed.

* These #s are not reflective of Agency-wide hiring results. During this time period, only
selected HR offices used HRACTS, data input was limited,  data quality was poor, and
types of hiring methods used  were not tracked. In addition, no other system was utilized
to track hiring timeliness across the  Agency.   Therefore,  the #s provided were for
informational use and meaningful baseline/targets needed to be established.  Upon HR
office consolidation to the Shared Service Center in FY09, HRACTS was refined to be
useful in  tracking Agency-wide hiring timeliness,  standards  for data quality  were
developed;  and types of hiring methods used (e.g. MP, DEU, etc) were incorporated.
FY 2012 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.

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 currently have a formal meter verification program to
ensure  that an on-site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the
utility bill. However, as EPA implements the advance metering requirements of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and  the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,which
should be well underway by FY 2010, calibration of advanced  meters will be performed,
at a minimum, on an annual basis.

New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A

References: N/A
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

       • Increase in number and percentage of certified acquisition staff (1102s)
         2012 target is 335 1102 staff (FY 09 baseline of 324 1102's) with 80% certified
         (FY 09 baseline of 70% certified).

-------
Performance Database:  The information for tracking the certification targets is
currently maintained in the EPA's "Federal Acquisition Certification, Warrants,  and
BPAs" database.

Data Source: The data in the "Federal Acquisition Certification, Warrants, and BPAs"
database is reviewed and inputted by EPA Procurement Analysts who are trained to
verify documents submitted by employees for Federal Acquisition Certification in
Contracting (FAC-C) certification and approval.

Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Executive Agencies were requested to propose
plans to increase the Acquisition Workforce by 5%.  OMB provided tools to the  Agencies
to determine what the appropriate size would be for the acquisition workforce which is
how EPA determined that we need 351 1102s by FY2014. We proposed adding new
contracting personnel annually, in even increments, through 2014 in order to reach this
goal.  Since EPA is always working on certifying our contracting personnel, the target
certification levels for FY2012 include certifying the personnel that EPA is bringing
onboard to satisfy the increase in the acquisition workforce and certifying those already
at EPA. Since EPA's proposed plan included bringing on mid- and senior-level  1102s, it
is expected that many will already be certified.

QA/QC Procedures:  Before an individual is certified, there are three levels of review
and approval of documentation proving certification eligibility.

Data Quality Reviews:  An initial review is performed on every individual's
documentation for certification by an EPA Policy Analyst that specializes in FAC-C
certification eligibility. The Analyst aids the applicant in preparing a complete package to
be reviewed for approval. Once the package is completed, it is provided to the Policy
Analyst's Team Leader for review and approval. Once it is determined that the package is
ready for final review by the Agency Acquisition Career Manager (ACM) the final
completed package is sent forward for review and approval. Once approved FAC-C level
I, II, or III is granted based on the information provided and applied  for. The FAC-C
certification allows for a warrant to be applied for and issued.

Data Limitations:  The data and results are limited by individuals deciding to apply for
certification. Certification and warranting procedures are initiated by the individual
seeking the certification/warrant. There may be eligible individuals already in the
acquisition workforce who have not yet applied for certification that EPA is unable to
track.

Error Estimate: An error estimate has not been calculated for this measure. EPA is
continually working on certifying our acquisition workforce, however, the estimates
proposed rely upon receiving the additional FTE for the acquisition workforce.

New/Improved Data or Systems: Not Applicable.

-------
References: March 4, 2009 Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies - Subject: Government Contracting.

October 27, 2009 OMB Memorandum for Chief Acquisition Officers, Senior
Procurement Executives, Chief Financial Officers, Chief Human Capital Officers-
Subject: Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan for Civilian Agencies - FY
2010-2014.

EPA's Acquisition Workforce Development Strategic Plan submitted to OMB  April 1,
2010.
FY 2012 Performance Measure:

•   Cumulative percentage reduction  in GreenHouse  Gas  (GHG)  Scope  1&2
    emissions from EPA's 34 reporting facilities from the FY 2008 baseline

Performance Database:

Scope 1 GHG emissions are emissions associated with fossil fuel burned at EPA facilities
or in EPA vehicles and equipment.  Sources of Scope 1 GHG emissions include fuel oil
and natural  gas burned in boilers,  gasoline used in vehicles, and diesel  fuel  used in
emergency generators.  Scope 2 GHG emissions are emissions associated with indirect
sources of energy such as electricity, chilled water, or purchased steam. For example, the
GHG emissions from the  coal and natural gas used to generate the electricity supplied to
EPA facilities are considered EPA Scope 2 GHG emissions.

The Agency's contractor provides energy  consumption and GHG production information
quarterly and annually.  The Agency keeps the energy consumption and GHG production
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.

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.
Once  the energy  data is received and  verified, the contractor  calculates  the  GHG
emissions factor for each facility,  by reviewing the e-grid location of the facility vs. the
DOE e-grid database. Once the  emissions factors for the various utilities are known for
each facility,  they are  worked  into  an  algorithm  to  produce  the  facilities  GHG
equivalents.

-------
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. Once  the
energy data is reviewed and verified, the contractor will review  and verify the GHG
equivalents data ensuring they are using the current translation factors.

Data Quality Reviews: N/A

Data Limitations: EPA does not currently have a formal meter verification program to
ensure that an on-site utility meter reading corresponds to the charges included in the
utility bill. However, as EPA implements the advance metering requirements of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
which is currently underway, EPA will move to annual calibration of advanced meters.

New/Improved Data or Systems:  N/A

References: N/A

FY 2012  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 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.  EPA currently has a
draft plan developed in August 2007  [contact: Charles Freeman, 202-566-1694].  In FY
2011, CDX will develop robust quality criteria, which will include performance  metric
results and align with the schedule for the upcoming CDX contract recompete.

Data Quality Reviews: CDX completed its last independent security risk assessment in
February 2007, 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.

References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).

-------
FY 2012 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 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_fmal.pdf

-------
FY 2012 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; and
•   Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions

Performance  Database:  The OIG Performance Measurement and Results System
(PMRS) 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 over a period of 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, analysis, 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
contractors, 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 General 2, 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.  OIG reports are referenced
and independently quality reviewed.

Data Quality Reviews:  There have not been any previous audit findings or reports by
external groups on data or database weaknesses in the OIG PMRS.  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 PMRS 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 F Y 2008, 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
PMRS. During FY 2009 the PMRS was converted to a relational database directly linked
to the new Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS).  The quality of
the data will  continue to improve in FY 2012   as staff will have to make fewer data
entries due to the integrated  nature of the system, gain greater familiarity  with the
measures, and perform 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
PMRS with supporting documentation available either through the OIG Web Site or other
Agency databases. The OIG Web Site is www.epa.gov/oig.1
  Government Auditing Standards (2007 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-07-731G, July
2007; Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, last updated July 2010.
13
  U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications;
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated July 2010.

-------
Office of Research and Development

FY 2012 Performance Measures:

   •  Percentage of planned risk management  research  products delivered  to
      support  EPA's Office of Water,  Regions,  water utilities,  and other key
      stakeholders  to manage public health risks  associated with exposure  to
      drinking  water,   implement  effective safeguards  on  the  quality  and
      availability of surface and underground sources of drinking water, improve
      the water infrastructure, and establish health-based measures of program
      effectiveness
   •  Percentage of planned methodologies, data, and tools delivered in support of
      EPA's Office of  Water  and other key stakeholders needs for  developing
      health risk assessments,  producing regulatory decisions, implementing new
      and revised rules, and achieving simultaneous compliance  under  the Safe
      Drinking Water Act
   •  Percentage of planned  outputs  delivered in support of the protection  of
      human health and ecosystems  as  related to designated  uses for  aquatic
      systems and the beneficial use of biosolid long-term goal
   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of  the 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
   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 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
   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material
      streams, conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term goal
   •  Percentage of planned  outputs  delivered  in support  of  the  mitigation,
      management and  long-term stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal
   •  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
   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered  in support of STS's  goal that
      decision   makers  adopt  ORD-developed  decision support  tools  and
      methodologies
   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered  in support of STS's  goal that
      decision   makers  adopt   ORD-identified   and  developed   metrics  to
      quantitatively assess environmental systems for sustainability
   •  Percentage of planned outputs delivered  in support of STS's  goal that
      decision makers adopt innovative technologies developed  or verified by ORD
   •  Percentage  of planned  outputs delivered in support of  public  health
      outcomes long-term goal

-------
       Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of mechanistic data long-
       term goal
       Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the aggregate and
       cumulative risk long-term goal
       Percentage of  planned  outputs  delivered  in support  of the susceptible
       subpopulations long-term goal
       Percentage of planned outputs delivered (Global Change Research)
       Percentage of planned outputs  delivered in  support  of HHRA Technical
       Support Documents
       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
       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.
       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
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  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).
Drinking Water Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004371.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Water Quality Research Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
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 Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
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 Program Assessment,  available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Global Change Research Program Assessment,  available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004307.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)

-------
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 Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001137.2005.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
Sustainability Research Strategy, available at
http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/pdfs/EPA-12057_SRS_R4-1 .pdf (last accessed
August 21,2008)
FY 2012 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

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 Program Assessment, available
at:   http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html   (last
accessed August 16, 2007)


FY 2012 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 2012 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 Human Health Risk Assessment (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 2012 Performance Measure:

   •   Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (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: N/A

-------