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 effectsthe 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 teamthe Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bayis
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 processstarting, 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 materialsfrom 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 engineersrecognizes 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 approachesand 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
areasuch as toxicogenomic methods, structure-activity relationships that are better-
informed by inherent properties information, and LCA methodsthe 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 pollutantsozone, particulate matter, sulfur and nitrous oxides,
carbon monoxide, and leadto 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 engineersconcluded 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 ReinvestmentMeasuring 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 changeparticularly climate variability and changeon 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 layerthis 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 AffairsBIA, 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 teamthe Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bayis
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 strategiesstrategies
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 2008Scenarios 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 programtwo 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 productsmany of which have multiple usesand
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 concerndiazinon, 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
materialsfrom 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 togetherindustry, state/local
government representatives, Non-Governmental Organizations, and other
stakeholdersto 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 wateror that enter water as a result of off-target
application of specific pesticidesmay 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 programtwo 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 engineersnoted 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 programtwo 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 Californiabased 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 wellClass VIwith 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 CouncilCanada, 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 materialsreaching 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 Congressany 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, Louisianaboth 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 cyclesincluding some that are legislatively mandateddo 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 concernsprimarily air
quality concerns from the spill and controlled burn emissions, waste management plans, and water
quality for dispersant level monitoringand 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 1Healthier 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 2Healthier Indoor Air: Healthier indoor air in homes, schools, and office
buildings.
$46,006.6
4%
Objective 3Protect 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 4Radiation: 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 5Reduce 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 pollutantsground-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 buildingsincluding
schools, homes, and workplacesand 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 1Protect 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 2Protect 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 3Enhance 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 ecosystemsspecifically
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 issuesstrengthening 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 wellClass 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 Statesits 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 1Preserve 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 2Restore 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 3Enhance 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 2011total site assessments completedwill 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 concernsprimarily air
quality concerns from the spill and controlled burn emissions, waste management plans, and water
quality for dispersant level monitoringand 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 1Chemical and Pesticide Risks: By 2011, prevent and reduce pesticide
and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
$501,007.8
26%
Objective 2Communities: Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the eco-
logical systems that support them.
$294,615.3
15%
Objective 3Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems: Protect, sustain, and restore
the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
$725,189.8
37%
Objective 4Enhance 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 watershedsrivers, 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 Partnershipmade up of states, EPA,
and other partnersimproved 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 1Improve 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 2Improve 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 3Build 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 4Enhance 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 approachesincluding regulation,
enforcement, research, outreach, community-based programs, and partnershipsto 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 Report2002. 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.
FREDSThe 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 datapercentage of U.S. population
covered by the programwill 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 IIV) 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 20052006; 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 reportinga 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, 20052006. 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 outbreaksUnited States, 20012002. 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 outbreaksUnited States, 19992000. 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 outbreaksUnited States, 19971998. 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 outbreaksUnited States, 19951996. 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 outbreaksUnited States, 19931994. 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 Fundingdescription of all project partners and all funding
(includes UW funds and other leveraged funds and resources), and
3) Replicationdescription 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 systemNEPORT 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 CostsThe 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
------- |