U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
FY 2011 National Program Manager's
Guidance
Draft-March 2010
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1-16
Key National Program Strategies and Priorities
Superfund Remediation and Federal Facilities 17-24
Emergency Response and Prevention 25-30
Brownfields and Land Revitalization 31-38
RCRA Waste Management 39-49
Underground Storage Tanks 50-61
Tribal Program Development 62
Environmental Justice 63
Community Action for a Renewed Environment 64
Synopsis of OS WER' s Feedback Process 65
State Grant Work Plan Instructions 66-71
Attachments
F Y 2011 Measures Appendix I
Explanation of Key Changes Between F Y 2010 and F Y 2011 n
-------
Executive Summary: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
I. Program Office
This guidance contains implementation priorities for all OSWER program offices: the
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), the Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), the Office of Emergency Management
(OEM), the Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR), the Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) and the Office of Underground Storage
Tanks (OUST). OSWER's enforcement counterparts, principally the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA) Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (OSRE) and Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO), also are
represented in this guidance. Additionally, OSWER collaborates holistically with other
agency programs on cross-media issues to address environmental concerns as "One
EPA."
II. Introduction/Context
The OSWER guidance defines national policy, strategic goals and priority activities as
well as Superfund enforcement goals managed by OECA. This guidance, prepared to
implement priorities described in EPA 's 2009-2014 Strategic Plan1 and in EPA 's FY
2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification2, should be used to assist
in National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) discussions. The
issuance of this guidance also marks the beginning of the process wherein regions, with
input from states and tribes, establish their performance commitments toward achieving
the agency's goals and enter them into the Annual Commitments System (ACS).
Regions should allocate FTE and extramural resources as needed to achieve these
national goals.
III. Administrator's and OSWER's Program Priorities
On January 12, 2010, Administrator Lisa P. Jackson circulated a memorandum to all EPA
employees highlighting our top priorities3. These priorities are organized into seven
themes to focus the work of the agency. All of OSWER's program offices make
significant contributions to progress made under these themes.
Taking Action on Climate Change
Improving Air Quality
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
Cleaning Up Our Communities
'The 2009-20014 EPA Strategic Plan Change Document can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/pdfs/strategic_plan_change document_9-30-08.pdf Waste programs and
their enforcement components are contained in goals 3, 4 and 5.
2 Placeholder for link to FY 2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification.
3 The Administrator's seven priorities for EPA's future can be found at
http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2010/01/12/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 1
-------
Protecting America's Waters
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
The following are OSWER program activities and priorities that support the
Administrator's themes:
Taking Action on Climate Change
Materials Management Materials management supports the Administrator's
climate change priority by identifying opportunities to reduce environmental impacts,
including greenhouse gas reductions (GHG), and social impacts across the life cycle of
materials from how they are mined, manufactured, used, reused, recycled, and finally
disposed. Efficiencies gained in a life cycle-based materials management approach can
result in less energy used, more efficient use of materials, and reduced volume and
toxicity of waste. In FY 2011, ORCR will work with regions and states to advance two
materials management demonstration projects focused on packaging and residential
construction/deconstruction, at the local level, designed to result in sustainable practices
which can be scaled to the national level. In addition, the program will pursue materials
management projects that reduce greenhouse gases, such as developing and
implementing a strategy for collecting and composting food waste, developing an
approach to sustainably finance municipal solid waste recycling programs, promoting the
safe reuse of industrial materials, increasing the national recycling rate, and focusing on a
national approach to electronic waste.
The Waste Reduction Model (WaRM), a software model used by communities,
businesses and EPA to measure greenhouse gas benefits of materials management
activities to include additional materials in FY 2011. The WaRM helps solid waste
planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions
reductions from several different waste management practices thereby informing local
decision-making.
Life Cycle Analysis Scientifically sound life cycle analysis is essential for making
informed materials management decisions and reducing the environmental impacts of
materials, including energy use and GHG emissions. In FY 2011, ORCR will implement
a life cycle analysis disclosure standard guidance outlining EPA's expectations for
disclosing information related to environmental claims made on products and materials.
The guidance will level the playing field among manufacturers and will inform buyers
from private citizens, commercial entities and government. The guidance will also
support the continued growth of environmental responsibility (product stewardship)
among manufacturers, users and disposers and allow EPA to provide leadership in with
green products and labeling.
Carbon Sequestration OSWER's work in carbon sequestration also supports the
climate change priority. Specifically, OSWER anticipates proposing regulations in FY
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 2
-------
2011 which will clarify how the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations apply to carbon dioxide injected underground.
Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery EPA's strategy for
reducing waste generation and increasing recycling is based on: (1) establishing and
expanding partnerships with businesses, industries, states, communities, and consumers;
(2) stimulating infrastructure and new technology development, environmentally
responsible behavior by product manufacturers, users, and disposers ("product
stewardship"), and new technologies; and (3) helping businesses, government,
institutions, and consumers through education, outreach, training, and technical
assistance. Furthermore, EPA's Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) programs
contribute to the reduction of energy use and GHG emissions.
Renewable Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction EPA is looking for
opportunities to reduce or avoid GHG emissions through improved materials and land
management practices. Strategies include the promotion of materials management
practices through the RCC and land management practices such as green remediation,
compact redevelopment, and the RE-Powering America's Land Initiative: Siting
Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mining Sites. Under RE-
Powering America, OSWER will continue work with our federal partners on the projects
selected for feasibility studies with the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL),
leveraging the expertise and resources of multiple agencies, to ensure that renewable
energy development yields economic benefits to communities most in need.
Improving Air Quality
7727 729 Rulemaking To support efforts to improve air quality, OSWER, in
consultation with EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, is identifying, through rulemaking,
which non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units are solid wastes under the RCRA. Materials determined to be solid
wastes under RCRA, when combusted in a combustion unit, would cause the unit to be
subject to the requirements promulgated under Clean Air Act §129 for solid waste
combustors. If a non-hazardous secondary material is not a "solid waste" under RCRA,
and is burned in a combustion unit, then the unit that burns that material would be subject
to the applicable CAA §112 requirements. In FY 2011, efforts will focus on issuance of
the final rule by December 2010 and outreach activities to assist in implementation of the
final rule.
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
Dioxin/ Arsenic and Other Chemicals To remain protective of human health and
the environment and ensure the safety of chemicals over their lifecycle, OSWER's waste
and materials management programs must face the challenge of adjusting to the latest
scientific understanding of both well-known traditional and newly emerging chemicals.
OSWER will ensure that its programs incorporate the latest scientific understanding of
the health, ecological and environmental fate properties of high priority chemicals such
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 3
-------
as lead, dioxin, arsenic, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, perchlorates, and mineral
fibers. We also will support this priority by developing new preliminary cleanup goals,
providing technical assistance on emerging technologies, issuing new guidance,
developing new methods, designing implementation strategies and, where needed,
adjusting our policies and programs. For FY 2011, areas of priority emphasis will
include implementing a new interim dioxin preliminary clean-up goal that is expected to
be finalized in FY 2010, completing critical guidance on the vapor intrusion of toxic
chemicals, establishing a preliminary clean-up goal for the inhalation of
trichloroethylene, developing program guidance that considers the latest human health
assessment of lead toxicity, and developing technical assistance support for nanoparticle
technology innovations.
The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) is the RCRA program
focused on the waste minimization of potentially hazardous chemicals. EPA will
continue to achieve NPEP reductions of priority chemicals goals by identifying potential
partners and individual facilities, and when possible multiple facilities, in industrial,
manufacturing, federal facilities, and municipal, and other sectors which are responsible
for the highest volume of chemicals and/or highest risk if released to the environment.
Cleaning Up Our Communities
Integrated Cleanup Initiative In an effort to improve the accountability,
transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multiyear
effort in 2010 to better use 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 (Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities,
Enforcement and Brownfields), EPA will better leverage the resources available to
address needs at individual sites.
Through the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, OSWER will examine all aspects of the
cleanup program, in a more granular fashion, identifying key process improvements,
enhanced efficiencies and associated performance measures to clearly gauge and
demonstrate progress from site assessment through site-wide construction completion. By
identifying and implementing strategic changes at key stages in the process through
which our contaminated sites are assessed and cleaned up, EPA believes the initiative
will accelerate cleanup and provide greater accountability and transparency. As an early
step toward improved remedial program measurement, in FY 2011, OSWER will
implement a new measure, "Number of remedial action (RA) projects completed at
Superfund NPL sites," to augment the site-wide construction completion measure
described above. This new measure better demonstrates on-going progress and risk
reduction at our Superfund sites and provides us with the opportunity to better manage
our cleanup program.
This effort will result in more transparency for EPA's cleanup programs, encourage
community involvement, manage remedial action project completion and enhance
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 4
-------
accountability to the public. Areas of priority in FY 2011 will include looking for
opportunities to activate the Removal program in conjunction with a Targeted
Brownfields Assessment, allowing the Agency to target both assessment and cleanup
resources to help a state, tribe or community assess, clean and redevelop a contaminated
site where other resources are not available.
The following are examples of activities EPA's cleanup programs are undertaking as part
of this initiative:
o Examining current Site Assessment program policies and practices;
o Expanding brownfield site assessment activities toward the goal of potentially
increasing acres made ready for reuse;
o Assessing possible contract efficiencies;
o Ongoing consultation with stakeholders;
o Reviewing the Superfund Remedial cleanup processes and procedures; and
o Examining opportunities for early and focused enforcement efforts to compel
timely cleanup.
o Examining opportunities for increasing PRP-led removal actions.
In FY 2011, the Superfund program will focus on cleaning up sites and returning them to
beneficial use. These goals will be achieved through the Integrated Cleanup Initiative by
assessing the worst sites first, ensuring that human exposure to toxic chemicals is under
control by identifying and addressing unacceptable risks at Human Exposure Insufficient
Data sites and Not Under Control sites, addressing the migration of contaminated
groundwater, using green remediation practices, selecting remedies that optimize reuse
and revitalization, completing remedial action projects, completing construction of
remedies, fully implementing institutional controls where necessary, ensuring sites are
ready for anticipated use, and working with public and private stakeholders to redevelop
sites.
EPA also will focus attention and resources to the growing universe of sites that reach the
post-construction complete phase. In FY 2011, EPA will ensure that the results of five-
year reviews continue to be made publicly available. For any site where the five-year
review determines a remedy is not protective, EPA will implement internal management
oversight to identify sites with unresolved recommendations for remedies found to be
unprotective. EPA will also publicize the actions that will be taken to make the remedy
protective and the progress in implementing those actions over time.
Brownfields With the additional funds requested in the FY 2011 budget as part of
EPA's Health Communities initiative, the Brownfields program will provide targeted
assessment funding focused on disadvantaged and economically distressed communities.
Technical assistance will be provided to these communities, area-wide planning, site
assessments, and supplemental funding for existing high performing Revolving Loan
Fund (RLF) recipients, with priority given to those with "shovel ready" projects in or
around distressed areas. We will work directly with HUD, DOT, USDA and other
federal agencies to identify "cities in transition" to encourage siting of renewable energy
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 5
-------
facilities on formerly contaminated land, especially in areas affected by the declines in
the auto sector.
EPA has set a new High Priority Performance Goal, to initiate 20 Brownfields
community-level projects as part of an enhanced effort to benefit under-served and
economically disadvantaged communities. This will allow those communities to assess
and identify cleanup and redevelopment plans to address multiple brownfields sites
through area-wide planning.
Financial Assurance EPA will undertake activities related to CERCLA 108(b)
financial responsibility requirements that support the priority of cleaning up communities
by proposing regulations that will reduce the likelihood that Superfund will be used for
cleanups and providing incentives for improved management of hazardous substances. In
FY 2011, areas of priority emphasis will include resolving several policy decisions
leading to proposal of a rule in the Federal Register based on existing financial
responsibility and the need for additional financial responsibility to 1) ensure that
adequate funds are available for cleanup and 2) foster better management procedures.
LandRevitalization All of EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial,
Superfund Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, RCRA Corrective Action,
Brownfields, and Underground Storage Tanks) and their partners are taking positive
action to protect human health and the environment through the cleanup and
revitalization of contaminated properties. This action includes using enforcement to hold
responsible parties accountable for performing or paying for cleanups. Revitalizing these
once productive properties can provide numerous positive benefits for communities such
as removing blight, satisfying the growing demand for land, limiting urban sprawl,
fostering ecologic habitat enhancements, enabling economic development in a consistent,
verifiable manner and maintaining or improving health and the quality of life.
Green Remediation OSWER will work with its partners to use green remediation
practices4 when addressing contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water, sediments, air,
and other environmental media. Cleanup activities use energy, water and material
resources to achieve cleanup objectives and these activities can impact surrounding
communities, ecosystems, and natural resources. EPA recognizes that the process of
cleanup has the unintended consequence of creating its own environmental footprint. We
have learned that we can optimize environmental performance and implement protective
cleanups that are greener by increasing our understanding of the environmental footprint
caused by cleanup activities and avoiding these unintended consequences while ensuring
the primary goal of protecting the public health and environment.
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Homeland Security EPA has a major
role in reducing the risk to human health and the environment posed by accidental or
intentional releases of hazardous substances and oil. This includes responding to
immediate threats of hazardous substances and oil and overseeing the responses to such
events by potentially responsible parties. Strategies include strengthening our
4 For more information on green remediation, please see http://cluin.org/greenremediation/
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 6
-------
relationships with state and local governments to increase our effectiveness in responses
where EPA involvement is needed and improving our capability to effectively prepare for
and respond to these incidents. EPA coordinates with other federal agencies to prepare
for nationally significant events as part of our Homeland Security responsibilities under
the National Response Framework (NRF). These responsibilities include responses to
biological, chemical, and radiological warfare agents.
OSWER's Emergency Response and Removal program supports this priority by
responding to immediate threats from releases of hazardous substances and oil. The
program acts as a federal safety net by working with local and state responders to allow
for response to immediate threats when such response is necessary (e.g., when the nature,
size or complexity of a spill is beyond the capacity or capabilities of the state or local
responders). In FY 2011, areas of priority will include improvements in the Agency's
capability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve harmful chemical, oil,
biological, and radiological substances. OSWER will explore improvements in field
equipment, response training and exercises, and technical capabilities.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and Risk
Management Programs support this priority by providing a framework for EPA to work
with State and Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs and TERCs), Local
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), other government entities and industry to
reduce the risks from chemical accidents and mitigate the effects of those accidents
should they occur. In FY2011, OSWER will work to reinvigorate the role of the SERCs
and LEPCs in emergency preparedness and response. We will continue to provide
guidance, tools, and technical assistance to states, tribes, local communities, and industry
to further their efforts in chemical accident prevention and emergency planning.
Additionally, OSWER will further expand the Risk Management inspection program by
focusing our inspections on high risk facilities and utilization to prevent impacts to
adjacent communities. We will ensure the inclusion of union and employee
representatives in our RMP inspections.
Coal Combustion Residual OSWER's assessments of coal combustion residual
(CCR) impoundments and our rulemaking activities support the Administrator's priorities
of cleaning up communities and protecting America's waters. Many of the CCR
management units are located near or on water bodies and near communities. We will
continue to make information on the assessments available to all on our website. EPA
also expects to finalize regulations for disposal of CCRs.
RCRA Corrective Action OSWER's RCRA Corrective Action program also
supports this priority by working to clean up the 3,746 operating RCRA facilities to
ensure protection of human health and the environment. Achieving our human health and
ground water environmental indicator goals is the first step toward building successful
long-term remedies that will result in safe, clean properties. Through FY 2009, EPA and
its state partners have achieved protection from human exposure at 65%, groundwater
migration at 58% and constructed final remedies at 32% of the 3,746 facilities in the 2020
corrective action universe. We are using, where possible, greener remedies to facilitate
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 7
-------
land revitalization for these RCRA sites.
In FY 2011, areas of priority emphasis will include reaching 72% for our human
exposure controlled indicator, 64% for our groundwater controlled indicator, and 38% for
our remedy constructed target. Toward these ends, activities in FY 2011 will include, for
example, finishing our National Corrective Action 2020 Training in all 10 EPA regions.
This training includes our State partners, as well as the regulated community. We also
will provide technical assistance to states and the regulated community as needed to
ensure we reach our national goals for FY 2011.
Underground Storage Tanks - Implementing the EPAct EPA has a critical role in
implementing the provisions of the EPAct. The EPAct substantially enhances the
underground storage tank (UST) release prevention program to minimize future releases
from USTs and provide additional emphasis on remediation of leaking USTs.
Implementing the EPAct provisions includes conducting more frequent inspections,
prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks, and requiring either secondary containment
for new tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers. For
further information and final EPA grant guidance, see
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/fedlaws/EPActUST.htm.
Protecting America's Waters
CERCLA and RCRA authorities should be included in a comprehensive approach to
watershed protection and are a critical component of the Administrator's priority to
protect America's waters. OSWER's cleanup programs already have a substantial
amount of work underway in the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes watersheds. We will
continue to use our cleanup programs to address current and historical releases. The
Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, Brownfields, and Removal programs can fill a gap
by addressing sources of pollution that are not regulated by Clean Water Act authorities.
In FY 2011, programs will continue these efforts and explore expanding site assessment
and cleanup efforts targeting the regional focus areas of Elizabeth River, Anacostia River,
and Baltimore Harbor. Further, OSWER will be a direct partner with the Office of Water
in implementing the Urban Waters Initiative, and in particular in engaging other federal
agencies in this effort.
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental
Justice
Community Engagement Initiative Community engagement is an integral part of
all of OSWER's work. OSWER will continue to implement its Community Engagement
Initiative to ensure transparent and accessible decision-making processes, deliver
information that communities can use to meaningfully participate and enhance EPA's
culture and management processes to produce outcomes that are responsive to
community perspectives. The Integrated Cleanup Initiative is an aggressive management
strategy to address community concerns for more accountability, transparency and
progress in the cleanup of contaminated sites. For all OSWER programs, specific
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 8
-------
activities will be refined and implemented in FYs 2010 and 2011 with ongoing feedback
and input from communities, stakeholders, local governments, tribes and states.
OSWER's Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) environmental justice (EJ) pilot project
supports this priority by engaging communities in a discussion on how to achieve reuse
and recycling of hazardous wastes without EJ impacts and how best to analyze potential
disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income communities from hazardous
secondary material recycling. For FY 2011, areas of priority emphasis will include fully
integrating EJ considerations in the Agency's decision-making process on the DSW rule.
Toward these ends, we will produce for public comment a draft analysis of potential
environmental justice impacts of the DSW rule as part of EPA's proposed response to an
administrative petition on the DSW rule.
EPA regional offices will continue implementing the Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CARE) program, a community-based, multi-media collaborative program
designed to help local communities address the cumulative risk of toxics exposure. EPA
program experts will provide technical guidance to communities to help them build
partnerships and use collaborative processes to select and implement actions to improve
community health and the environment. Regional staff will support work to capture best
practices and role up and translate their place-based successes into other programs.
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
States play a varied and critical role in all of OSWER's programs but declining tax
revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring state agencies and tribal governments to do
more with fewer resources. Strong partnerships and accountability are more important
than ever. States are authorized to operate some programs, while in others they are
partners. The chance of success in all programs, including voluntary programs, is
dependent on full and active participation of states. Providing grants and funding
assistance, developing guidance, tools, and technical assistance, keeping open lines of
communications regarding planning and program development, and providing needed
tools and analysis to help make the right decisions strengthens EPA's relationship with
the states.
OSWER will continue its extensive and carefully planned participation in state
organization meetings, such as the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO).
OSWER management is proposing to ECOS to initiate quarterly conference calls with
ECOS committee chairs.
In partnership and consultation with the OIA's American Indian Environmental Office,
OSWER will continue to participate in tribal organization meetings, and in meetings with
individual tribes, to ensure appropriate consultation and communication with tribes for all
OSWER programs. We also participate in tribal organization meetings such as the
National Tribal Operations Committee (NTOC). OSWER has made it a priority to
increase headquarters' participation in EPA regional meetings with tribes, such as annual
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 9
-------
regional tribal meetings, Tribal Leaders Summits, and Regional Tribal Operations
Committee meetings, to enhance understanding of local issues facing tribes. OSWER
also has partnered with the Institute of Tribal Environmental Professionals and created
the Tribal Waste and Response Assistance Program (TWRAP), which is led by a national
tribal steering committee that reflects the broad needs and interests of tribes throughout
the country.
OSWER will continue to play an integral, supportive role in strengthening and building
the capacity of state and tribal environmental response programs through the funding and
technical assistance provided under the Brownfields CERCLA 128(a) program. This
program, through cooperative agreements, allocates approximately $50M each year to
strengthen and support state and tribal environmental response programs. OSWER has
placed a new emphasis on ensuring that, as much as possible, site specific assessment and
cleanup activity supported with these funds are directed to disadvantaged and
underserved communities and neighborhoods.
IV. Implementation Strategies
OSWER will be implementing its Community Engagement Initiative designed to
enhance headquarters and regional program engagement with local communities and
stakeholders to meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup,
emergency response, and the management of hazardous substances and waste. The
initiative provides an opportunity for OSWER to refocus and renew its vision for early
and effective community engagement, build on existing good practices, and apply them
consistently in EPA processes. Proactive, meaningful engagement with communities will
enable OSWER and regional programs to obtain better information about the
environmental problems and local situations, leading to more informed and effective
policies and decisions. The goals of this initiative are to ensure transparent and
accessible decision-making processes, deliver information that communities can use to
meaningfully participate and enhance EPA's culture and management processes to
produce outcomes that are responsive to community perspectives and that ensure timely
cleanup decisions. Specific activities will be refined and implemented in FY 2010 with
ongoing feedback and input from communities, stakeholders, local governments, tribes,
and states.
OSWER is pursuing program efficiencies to improve the management of the programs
and increase joint efforts among programs. A key effort described above is our
Integrated Cleanup Initiative. By bringing to bear the relevant tools available in each of
the cleanup programs (Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities, Enforcement and
Brownfields), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at
individual sites.
The Superfund program will focus on cleaning up contaminated National Priorities List
(NPL) sites and making them available for beneficial reuse. These goals will be achieved
5 Please see link to Community Engagement Initiative Proposed Action Plan
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/cei action plan 12-09.pdf
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 10
-------
through the Integrated Cleanup Initiative by assessing the worst sites first, ensuring that
human exposure to toxic chemicals is under control by identifying and addressing
unacceptable risks at Human Exposure Insufficient Data sites and Not Under Control
sites, addressing the migration of contaminated groundwater, using green remediation
practices, selecting remedies that optimize reuse and revitalization, completing remedial
action projects, completing construction of remedies, fully implementing institutional
controls where necessary, ensuring sites are ready for anticipated use, and working with
public and private stakeholders to redevelop sites. States, tribes and local governments
are key partners in the cleanup of Superfund sites and the implementation of institutional
controls necessary to protect public health and the environment. Superfund's regional
programs will continue to work closely with these partners in accomplishing key goals
and objectives under EPA's 2009-2014 Strategic Plan.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program will focus on enhancing the cleanup
process and promoting reuse of properties at federal facilities listed on the NPL and
specific Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) bases. As BRAC sites are cleaned up
and/or transferred, the resources that the Department of Defense (DoD) provides to EPA
will decrease. OSWER continues to work closely with DoD to ensure those properties
being transferred post cleanup, or transferred prior to cleanup, meet the statutory
requirements. The FY 2011 budget request includes a redirection of reimbursable FTE
from the BRAC program to the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program to
support increased workload needs at the non-BRAC I-V sites. BRAC program needs
continue to decline as more BRAC sites are cleaned up or are transferred. At the BRAC
I-IV NPL sites, EPA will continue to conduct oversight at these sites. Work at NPL and
BRAC I-IV sites will be done collaboratively with our federal, state, tribal and local
partners as well as affected communities. The Federal Facilities Enforcement program
will use the most appropriate enforcement and compliance tools to address the significant
problems at these sites. In addition, the program will attempt to resolve outstanding site-
specific disputes as well as obtain and enforce statutorily-mandated Interagency
Agreements (IAs)/Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) at those NPL sites without one.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response and Enforcement programs will work together
to ensure that the Federal Government fully addresses its responsibilities at NPL and
those BRAC sites with active EPA involvement.
The Superfund Removal and Oil programs will ensure that releases of hazardous
substances and oil in the inland zone are appropriately addressed to reduce the threat to
human health and the environment. The Oil program will promote spill prevention by
communicating the revised Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
regulation and working with industry to implement the requirements. EPA will continue
to support local, state, tribal and other federal responders at incidents when federal
support is needed and appropriate, and direct and/or monitor responses by responsible
parties. EPA will ensure a coordinated effort concerning homeland security issues,
among its own offices and with other federal agencies, to prepare for coordinated and
effective responses to nationally significant incidents. EPA also will actively audit
facilities that are required to have Risk Management Plans (RMPs), analyze RMP data to
understand trends in and causes of chemical accidents and utilize RMP data to conduct
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 11
-------
outreach to improve chemical safety, provide greater transparency and utilize data to
address broad community impacts.
The Brownfields and Land Revitalization program will promote assessment, cleanup, and
redevelopment of brownfields and other contaminated properties; fund grant programs
and other research efforts; clarify liability issues; enter into partnerships with local, state,
tribal and federal entities; conduct outreach activities; and support brownfields job
training programs. Regions will continue to support the national grant competition;
emphasize performance and outcome measurement; work with state and tribal co-
implementers of the Brownfields law; provide technical outreach support; and address
environmental justice issues. The program also will prioritize sustainability, research and
providing technical assistance to communities to implement sustainable redevelopment
practices on brownfields and other contaminated properties.
The Brownfields and Land Revitalization program will invigorate its effort to speed the
delivery of funds to successful Brownfields grant applicants, and will work, through grant
guideline revisions, outreach and stronger communication, to strengthen the link between
brownfields job training and job creation. The program also has been very successful in
delivering resources to communities, states and tribal governments for Brownfields site
assessments. Beginning in 2011, the program will undertake a program evaluation to
determine if these assessment resources are effectively leading to cleanup and reuse of
the brownfield sites, and to find ways to strengthen the critical link between site
assessment, site cleanup and site reuse.
The RCRA program continues its focus on two primary areas. One is the continued
existing statutory obligations to ensure the safe management of hazardous and non-
hazardous waste and to clean up hazardous and non-hazardous releases. The other is our
emphasis on resource conservation and materials management through partnerships.
Much of the effort toward solid waste and chemicals reduction and recycling is under the
RCC program.
The RCRA program also stresses the importance of incorporating environmental justice
(EJ) into all of its regulatory and non-regulatory activities. The program places a strong
emphasis on engaging communities in all stages of decision-making processes, working
collaboratively to develop solutions that address the concerns of the community to the
extent practical and possible. We encourage innovative solutions that look beyond
specific programs solutions that approach situations holistically and utilize elements
from a variety of program areas to improve situations in communities that may be
disproportionately impacted by waste and materials management activities.
The Underground Storage Tank (UST) program will continue to assist states and tribes in
implementing the UST program. The program has a strong focus on preventing leaks
from USTs, and detecting, as early as possible, leaks when they occur. EPA works very
closely with, and provides assistance to, states to help them meet their continuing
responsibilities, as well as their responsibilities authorized under the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. The program also has a strong cleanup focus to assess and clean up leaks from
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 12
-------
USTs, and to promote redevelopment of sites contaminated with petroleum (i.e.,
petroleum brownfields).
EPA Superfund Remedial, Underground Storage Tank and Brownfields programs will
continue implementing the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) by furthering cleanup at National Priority List (NPL) sites, maximizing job creation
and retention, and providing environmental and economic benefits; by cleaning up
contaminated leaking underground storage tank sites effectively, while maximizing job
creation and retention and providing economic and environmental benefits (such as
protecting groundwater and cleaning up and reusing contaminated land); and by overseeing
Brownfields assessment, cleanup, new and supplemental Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) and
job training cooperative agreements and providing technical assistance and training to
brownfields communities via regional contracts and Interagency Agreements (IA); For more
information concerning program-specific plans and progress reports, please see
http://www.epa.gov/recovery/plans.html
EPA, states, territories, and tribes are working together to develop the National
Environmental Information Exchange Network, a secure, Internet- and standards-based
way to support electronic data reporting, sharing, and integration of both regulatory and
non-regulatory environmental data. Where data exchange using the Exchange Network is
available, states, tribes and territories exchanging data with each other or with EPA
should make the Exchange Network and EPA's connection to it, the Central Data
Exchange (CDX), the standard way they exchange data and should phase out any legacy
methods they have been using. More information on the Exchange Network is available
at http://www.exchangenetwork.net/
V. Performance Measures
On October 11, 2006, the Deputy Administrator signed a memorandum entitled, State
Reporting Burden and Measures Streamlining Initiatives6, to provide an important
opportunity for our state partners and EPA to identify burdensome requirements and
measures for potential deletion or modification. Through these initiatives, EPA developed
a smaller set of reporting requirements to support measures that are useful for monitoring
Agency performance. EPA is working with its state partners to identify and address
remaining high-burden, low-value reporting requirements.
OSWER is pursuing program efficiencies under its Integrated Cleanup Initiative 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
achievements of EPA's cleanup programs. As an early step toward improved remedial
program measurement, in FY 2011, EPA will implement a new measure, "Number of
remedial action (RA) projects completed at Superfund NPL sites," to augment the
program's site-wide construction completion measure. The FY 2011 target of completing
6 The October 11, 2006 memorandum entitled, "State Reporting Burden and Measures Streamlining
Initiatives" can be found at http://www.epa.gov/cfo/npmguidance/fy07 memo from_peacock.pdf
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 13
-------
103 RA projects will be achieved in part through FY 2009 ARRA funding and through
program efficiency gains.
OSWER continues to emphasize the importance of cross-program revitalization measures
to promote and communicate cleanup and revitalization-related accomplishments and
associated benefits/values to society7. These acres-based measures will enable OSWER
to describe the collective scope of sites being addressed by all of its cleanup programs as
well as acres-based progress. During FY 2007, OSWER programs began implementing
the following three cross-program revitalization measures, which are predominantly
based on information the programs already collect:
Universe Indicator - the total number of sites and acres being addressed by all
OSWER's cleanup programs.
Protective for People Performance Measure - the number of sites and acres at
which there is no complete pathway for human exposures to unacceptable levels
of contamination based on current site conditions.
Ready for Anticipated Uses (RA U) Performance Measure - the number of sites
and acres at which cleanup goals have been achieved for media that may affect
current as well as reasonably expected future land uses, and institutional controls8
identified as part of the remedy are in place.
OSWER programs are expected to provide updates on these measures in the Cross-
Program Revitalization Measures Report.
VI. Significant Changes to Priorities or Strategies from FY 2010
The most far-reaching changes to EPA's strategies are defined by the priorities identified
the Administrator in her January 12, 2010 memorandum to all EPA employees. These
priorities are organized into seven themes to focus the work of the agency. OSWER's
contribution to each of these priorities is critical to its success and is described in section
III of this executive summary.
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's
cleanup programs, EPA has initiated its Integrated Cleanup Initiative, a multi-year effort
to better use 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 (Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities, Enforcement and
Brownfields), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at
individual sites. Further, the effort will examine all aspects of the cleanup program, in a
7 See following websites for more information on documenting and reporting OSWER's land revitalization
performance measures and indicators: http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/sf ff final cprm guidance.pdf.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nazard/correctiveaction/resources/guidance/brfields/lr guid.pdf and
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm
8 For more information concerning institutional controls please see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policv/ic/index.htm
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 14
-------
more granular fashion, identifying key process improvements, enhanced efficiencies, and
associated performance measures to clearly gauge and demonstrate progress from site
assessment through site-wide construction completion. EPA's ability to pursue this
initiative is due in part to ARRA funding for remedial design or remedial action projects.
This effort will result in more transparency for EPA's cleanup programs, encourage
community involvement, and enhance accountability to the public.
OSWER will be implementing its Community Engagement Initiative designed to enhance
headquarters and regional program engagement with local communities and stakeholders
to meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency
response, and the 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 meaningfully participate and enhance EPA's
culture and management processes to produce outcomes that are responsive to
community perspectives.
EPA has set a new High Priority Performance Goal, to initiate 20 Brownfields
community-level projects that will include a new area-wide planning effort, as part of an
enhanced effort to benefit under-served and economically disadvantaged communities.
This will allow those communities to assess and address multiple brownfields sites within
their boundaries, thereby advancing area-wide planning and cleanups and enabling
redevelopment of Brownfields properties on a broader scale than on individual sites.
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.
The Superfund Remedial program will support the Agency's FY 2011 Healthy
Communities initiative with resources to strengthen our partnership with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on cleaning up contaminated sediments in urban rivers adjacent to
Superfund sites. In addition, EPA will continue coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and consulting engineers to analyze staging options for large complex
design and construction projects. The effort will augment the Agency's outreach to the
Regional offices by expanding their access to technical resources to help promote the
efficiency of project delivery and to facilitate project progress through the Superfund
pipeline. EPA will work on optimizing groundwater remedies and sharing best practices
with Regional offices for cost management and efficiency improvements.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 15
-------
VII. Program Contacts
Program/Issue
General OSWER
Superfund Remedial
Emergency Management
Brownfields
OSWER Revitalization
Solid Waste
Underground Storage Tanks
Federal Facilities
Tribal
Innovation
Clean Energy/ Greenhouse Gas
Environmental Justice & CARE
Contact
Sue Priftis (202) 566- 1901
Howard Rubin (202) 566-1899
Glen Cuscino (202) 566-1906
ArtFlaks(703)603-9088
Amy Vandenburg (703) 603-9028
Lisa Guarneiri (202) 564-7997
Josh Woodyard (202) 564-9588
Bill Finan (202) 564-7981
Juanita Standifer (202) 566-2764
Rachel Lentz (202) 566-2745
Patricia Overmeyer (202) 566-2774
Wayne Roepe (703) 308-8630
Angela Talaber (703) 308-1848
Adam Klinger (703) 603-7167
Hal White (703) 603-7177
Tencil Coffee (703) 603-0053
Brendan Roache (703) 603-8704
Felicia Wright (202) 566-1886
Jeffrey Kohn (202) 566-1407
Cathy Allen (202) 566-1039
Pat Carey (202) 566-0 199
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 16
-------
Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response Programs
Goal Three: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land
Administrator priorities supported by this national program include:
Cleaning Up Our Communities
Protecting America's Waters
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
On December 11, 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA was enacted to fill a major gap
in environmental and health protection by providing the Federal Government with
additional statutory authority to respond to releases and threats of releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants. CERCLA was later amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986.
The Superfund Remedial program addresses the risks to human health and the
environment at contaminated properties or sites through cleanup, stabilization, or other
action, and in so doing helps make these properties available for reuse. Resources in this
program are used to: 1) fund states to collect and analyze data on sites to determine the
need for a federal CERCLA response, which may culminate in the placement of a site on
the National Priorities List (NPL), 2) conduct or oversee investigations and studies to
select remedies, 3) design and construct or oversee construction of remedies and post-
construction activities at fund- and PRP-lead sites, 4) facilitate participation of other
federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments and communities in the program, 5)
implement Superfund tribal guidance concepts to improve EPA's tribal consultation
efforts in the Superfund program and consideration of tribal lifeways in the Hazard
Ranking System, and 6) provide sound science and continually integrate smarter
technical solutions into protection strategies.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program facilitates faster, more effective and
timely cleanup and reuse of federal facilities while ensuring protection of human health
and the environment from releases of hazardous substances. Nationwide, there are
thousands of federally-owned contaminated sites. These federal facilities which are
contaminated with hazardous waste, military munitions, radioactive waste, fuels, and a
variety of other toxic contaminants. These facilities include various types of sites, such
as Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS); active, realigning and closed installations;
abandoned mines; nuclear weapons production facilities; fuel distribution areas; and
landfills.
The Agency fulfills a number of statutory and regulatory obligations at federal facilities,
including conducting oversight of those sites on the Superfund NPL where cleanup is
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 17
-------
conducted by other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Department of Energy (DOE). A major role of the program is to ensure statutory
responsibilities related to the transfer of contaminated federal properties at both NPL and
non-NPL sites are properly met. Such responsibilities include approval of transfers prior
to implementation of remedies at NPL sites (i.e., early transfer), and approving
determinations that remedies are operating "properly and successfully" at both NPL and
non-NPL sites. Often EPA, and the parties implementing the remedies, face unique
challenges due to the types of contamination present, the size of the facility and extent of
contamination, ongoing facility operations that need to continue, complex community
involvement requirements, and complexities related to the redevelopment of the
facilities.6
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program also works with DoD at selected
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations. With the enactment of BRAC
legislation, more than 500 major military installations representing the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Defense Logistics Agency were slated for realignment or closure in 1988,
1991, 1993, 1995 and 2005. Under the first four rounds of BRAC, 107 of those sites
were identified as requiring accelerated cleanup. Seventy-two federal facilities currently
listed on the NPL were identified under BRAC 2005 as closing, realigning or gaining
personnel.7 EPA has worked with DoD over the past several years on their effort of
privatizing BRAC sites.
As BRAC sites are cleaned up and/or transferred, the resources that DoD provides to
EPA will decrease. EPA continues to work closely with DoD to ensure those properties
being transferred post cleanup or transferred early prior to cleanup meet the statutory
requirements. With the discontinuation of reimbursable resources for EPA's support once
the BRAC site is operating properly and successfully or transferred, the dedicated support
for EPA's FTE will end. We will continue working at those sites listed on the NPL, but
there will be no further support for non- NPL sites.
Working together with federal, state and tribal partners, the Superfund Response program
accomplished the following activities by the end of FY 2009:8
Completed 400 final assessment decisions, for a cumulative total of 40,558 sites
completing final assessment decisions since the program's inception.
Selected 101 cleanup remedies at 72 sites; amended 23 cleanup plans; and issued
52 explanations of significant differences at 48 sites
Through the use of appropriated and Recovery Act funds, state cost-share
contributions, and potentially responsible party settlement resources, funded all
25 projects ready to proceed with new construction as ranked by the National
Risk-Based Priority Panel at 25 National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
6 For more information on the Federal Facilities program go to http://www.epa.gov/fedfac.
7 For more information on the BRAC program go to
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documert^aseclosure.htm.
8 For more information regarding the program's cumulative accomplishments through FY 2009, please
refer to the Goal 3 Chapter of the Agency's FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report at
www.epa. gov/ocfo.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 18
-------
Determined that the land at a net total of 66 additional NPL sites was ready for
anticipated use site-wide.
By identifying and addressing unacceptable risks at Insufficient Data and Not
Under Control sites, achieved control of all identified unacceptable human
exposures at a net total of 11 additional sites, bringing the program's cumulative
total to 1,320 sites under control.
Through the implementation of engineered remedies or through natural processes,
achieved control of the migration of contaminated groundwater at a net total of 16
additional sites, bringing the program's cumulative total to 1,012 sites under
control.
Achieved construction completion at 20 sites for a cumulative total of 1080 NPL
sites. In addition, 8 sites were deleted from the NPL for a cumulative total of 338
NPL site deletions.
Conducted 231 Five-year reviews.
Program Priorities
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's
cleanup programs, EPA initiated its "Integrated Cleanup Initiative, " a multiyear effort to
better use 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 (Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities, Enforcement and
Brownfields), EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at
individual sites.
For example, 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 achievements of EPA's cleanup
programs. As an early step toward improved remedial program measurement, in FY
2011, EPA will implement a new measure, "Number of remedial action (RA) projects
completed at Superfund NPL sites," to augment the site-wide construction completion
measure described above. The FY 2011 target will be 103 and is due to ARRA funds
provided in FY 2009, increased focus on moving projects to completion, and gains
through program efficiencies. The programs also are examining current Site Assessment
program policies and practices; exploring efforts to leverage the Removal and Brownfield
authorities; expanding brownfield site assessment activities toward the goal of potentially
increasing acres made ready for reuse; assessing possible contract efficiencies; and
reviewing Superfund remedial cleanup processes and procedures.
Enforcement assures that parties responsible for contamination step up to their cleanup
responsibility. As part of the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, OECA will take early and
focused enforcement efforts to compel cleanup. Those efforts include increasing
enforcement earlier in the pipeline at non-emergency removal action and RI/FS stages;
expediting remedial action by holding parties accountable to negotiation timeframes and
scheduled cleanup commitments; and rejuvenating the process for early identification of
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 19
-------
responsible parties to support increased site assessment, NPL listings, and early
enforcement activities.
In FY 2011, as in prior years, cleanup and response work at contaminated sites will
remain the top priority of the Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response
programs. The Superfund Response program will continue to address challenging and
complex environmental problems, such as contaminated soil and groundwater affecting
residential, commercial, recreational and industrial areas that can cause human health
problems. The goal of this work is ultimately to reduce current, direct human exposures
to hazardous pollutants and contaminants and provide long-term human health protection.
Furthermore, The Superfund Remedial program will support the Agency's FY
2011 "RestoringImperiled Waters" initiative and strengthen our partnership with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on cleaning up contaminated sediments in urban rivers adjacent
to Superfund sites.
In addition to its cleanup work, the Superfund program will undertake temporary
activities, such as providing alternative drinking water supplies or relocating residents
when appropriate, to protect people from threats posed by uncontrolled hazardous wastes,
contaminated groundwater or surface water. These efforts demonstrate the Agency's
commitment to protecting human health from both possible short- and long-term effects
of site-related contamination.
In addition to protecting human health, the Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities
Response programs will continue efforts to render formerly contaminated sites Ready for
Anticipated Use. To accomplish this goal, EPA will focus on the growing universe of
sites that have reached the post-construction complete phase, ensuring remedies remain
protective and institutional controls are in place. It is anticipated that this focused
activity will yield increases in the number of sites determined to be ready for anticipated
use site-wide because approximately 800 NPL sites have been in the post construction
phase for a number of years.
Various performance goals and measures for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response
program are a subset of the Superfund Remedial program's measures. The Agency's
ability to meet its annual Superfund targets is partially dependent on work performed by
other federal agencies at NPL federal facility sites.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $600 million for
Superfund remedial cleanup activity. These funds are being used to further cleanup at
National Priorities List (NPL) sites across the country, maximize job creation and
retention, and provide environmental and economic benefits. These objectives will be
achieved by starting new cleanup projects, accelerating cleanups at projects already
underway, increasing the number of workers and activities at cleanup projects, and
returning affected sites to more productive use.
Performance Goals for FY 2011:
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 20
-------
(1) 325 remedial final site assessment decisions;
(2) A net increase of 10 sites with human exposures under control;
(3) A net increase of 15 sites with groundwater migration under control;
(4) 103 remedial action project completions;
(5) A net increase of 65 sites deemed ready for anticipated use site-wide;
(6) 25 construction completions; and
(7) 7.3 sites with current or long-term exposure controlled per million dollars
expended (efficiency measure).
The Superfund Federal Facilities program underwent a program assessment in FY 2005
and received an overall rating of "moderately effective." As follow-up to the assessment,
the program has been working with other federal agencies to attain long-term
environmental measures. These efforts will continue in FY 2011. Additionally, another
program evaluation was conducted in FY 2008-2009. Results and recommendations
generated from this evaluation were being implemented in FY 2009 and FY 2010. This
program evaluation analyzed the program's planning and data processes for cleanup
milestones.
Implementation Strategies to Meet Performance Goals
This NPM guidance provides direction to the Regions to meet the priorities of the
Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response programs. In FY 2011, the
Superfund program will focus on cleaning up sites and returning them to beneficial reuse.
These goals will be achieved through the Integrated Cleanup Initiative by assessing the
worst sites first, ensuring that human exposure to toxic chemicals is under control by
identifying and addressing unacceptable risks at Human Exposure Insufficient Data sites
and Not Under Control sites, addressing the migration of contaminated groundwater,
using green remediation practices, selecting remedies that optimize reuse and
revitalization, completing remedial action projects, completing construction of remedies,
fully implementing institutional controls where necessary, ensuring sites are ready for
anticipated use, and working with public and private stakeholders to redevelop sites.
States, tribes, local governments, and other federal agencies are key partners in the
cleanup of Superfund hazardous waste sites and the implementation of institutional
controls necessary to protect public health and the environment. Superfund's regional
offices will continue to work closely with these partners in accomplishing these key goals
and objectives under the EPA FY 2009 - 2014 Strategic Plan.
In FY 2011, the Superfund program will continue to integrate OSWER's Community
Engagement Initiative into its decision-making processes in a manner that ensures timely
cleanup decisions. Projects supporting this initiative will include providing risk
communication training; creating an improved marketing effort to explain better technical
assistance opportunities available for communities; implementing procedures to improve
the diversity and broad-based representation of Citizen Advisory Groups; and selecting
multiple sites for Superfund Job Training Initiative (SuperJTI) projects.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 21
-------
EPA provides funds to the states to assist in the Superfund site assessment process to
identify and evaluate potential hazardous waste sites under CERCLA. Evaluation results
are used to determine if sites may pose human health and ecological risks needing
immediate or longer-term cleanup attention. EPA and its partners will then determine
which cleanup approach (e.g., National Priorities Listing, EPA removal, other federal or
state/tribal cleanup program, etc.) should be used for sites needing cleanup attention. In
FY 2011, EPA will work with the states and tribes to accelerate evaluations of sites
where a final assessment decision (FAD) has not been made. We also will work to
develop ways to fully account for the benefits of this site assessment process by
potentially tracking site completions and redevelopment at sites which were not placed on
the NPL. As of the end of FY 2009, approximately 3,800 sites in the site assessment
inventory were awaiting a FAD. Also, about 200 new sites are added to the site
assessment inventory each year for evaluation. At the end of FY 2009, a cumulative total
of 40,558 sites had a FAD.
EPA is committed to providing resources to maintain adequate construction progress at
all sites, including large and complicated remedial projects, once construction has started.
Funding for Superfund construction projects is critical to achieving risk reduction,
construction completion, and restoration of contaminated sites to productive reuse. The
program will continue to work with Regions to improve long-term planning construction
estimates and funding strategies. The Agency will also continue to emphasize the
importance of community involvement throughout the cleanup process.
Superfund strives to 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. This strategy supports the Agency's strategic plan for
compliance and environmental stewardship9. The practice of "green remediation"
considers and addresses all environmental effects of remedy implementation for
contaminated sites and incorporates options to maximize the net environmental benefit of
cleanup actions10. In FY 2011, Superfund will work with other site cleanup programs and
organizations to advance green remediation practices and identify new opportunities and
tools to make "greener" decisions across Superfund cleanup sites by implementing its
National strategy for green remediation.
The Superfund Green Remediation Strategy provides a series of potential actions and
activities to promote program priorities for protectiveness while reducing the
environmental footprint of site cleanup activities. As part of the strategy, the Superfund
remedial program will develop measures to understand the existing impacts and to help
measure and document its performance in reducing the environmental impacts. The
Superfund program will continue to support the primary intent of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) by ensuring the protectiveness and timeliness of remedies at
Superfund sites.
9 U.S. EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2006
10 For more information about green remediation, please see http://cluin.org/greenremediation/
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 22
-------
EPA will focus attention and resources to the growing universe of sites that reach the
post-construction complete phase. As of the end of FY 2009, approximately 67 percent
of NPL sites had achieved construction completion, while many other sites had achieved
significant progress toward completion of all remedies. EPA plans to conduct over 270
five-year reviews in FY 2011, and the Agency will continue to need resources to conduct
activities (e.g. five-year reviews) to ensure remedies (including institutional controls) are
working optimally and as intended at sites where hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. In FY 2011, EPA will ensure that the results of five-year reviews
continue to be made publicly available. For any site where the five-year review
determines a remedy is not protective, EPA will implement internal management
oversight to identify sites with unresolved recommendations for remedies found to be
unprotective. EPA will also publicize the actions that will be taken to make the remedy
protective and the progress in implementing those actions over time.
During the remedy investigation/feasibility study stage, when alternatives are being
analyzed which may leave contamination on-site requiring future control and monitoring,
EPA Regions will consult with states, tribes, local governments and affected community
on the Institutional Controls (ICs) that may be required in order to be protective. During
this early consultation stage, EPA Regions will evaluate the capability of the local
government/state/tribe to implement and enforce the ICs and will consider this capability
in their selection of a preferred alternative for the proposed plan.
The EPA Regions, with Headquarters oversight, will continue to evaluate all construction
complete sites to ensure that necessary institutional controls (ICs) have been
implemented and remain effective. This work will identify many older sites for which
ICs should have been implemented. EPA is also making 1C information available on the
internet to enable the public to view 1C instruments affecting individual sites.11 An
information system has been developed to capture this information.
As part of EPA's broader policy to implement initiatives that will benefit
disproportionately burdened communities, the Superfund program will continue efforts to
address fish consumption exposure pathways by working to enhance community outreach
and protect vulnerable communities. Through this initiative, EPA will further address
human exposure pathways at specific NPL sites designated as, "human exposures not
under control" (HENUC), by using community outreach and engagement practices and
tools. The Agency will continue to evaluate options as part of its community engagement
initiative that focus on providing information to communities through non-traditional
channels (e.g. churches) to improve the effectiveness of remedies.
OSWER will ensure that its programs incorporate the latest scientific understanding of
the health, ecological and environmental fate properties of high priority chemicals such
as lead, dioxin, arsenic, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, perchlorates, and mineral
fibers. For FY 2011, areas of priority emphasis will include implementing a new interim
11 Please visit the following website to search Superfund site information:
http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/policy/ic/index. htm.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 23
-------
dioxin preliminary clean-up goal that is expected to be finalized in FY 2010, completing
critical guidance on the vapor intrusion of toxic chemicals, establishing a preliminary
clean-up goal for the inhalation of trichloroethylene, developing program guidance that
considers the latest human health assessment of lead toxicity, and developing technical
assistance support for nanoparticle technology innovations.
The Agency will continue to focus attention on the management of special accounts to
further advance program effectiveness and site cleanups. Special accounts are site-
specific, interest bearing sub-accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund established
through settlements with potentially responsible parties and used to fund site-specific
response work. Over the past two decades, EPA has collected and placed in special
accounts more than $2 billion in settlement funds, and has contributed more than $1
billion to the cleanup of hundreds of Superfund sites. EPA will continue efforts to
improve the management of Superfund special account resources by reviewing the
planned uses of those resources with the Regions as part of the Superfund program's
annual work planning process and implementing activities outlined in the Superfund
Special Accounts Management Strategy.
Enforcement supports faster, more effective and timely cleanup and reuse of federal
facilities. EPA has Federal Facility Agreements in place at almost all federal facility
NPL sites regarding the cleanups conducted by the facilities and EPA's oversight of those
cleanups. Those agreements lay out procedures for resolving disputes. Regions are
expected to use the procedures of the agreements, or other applicable enforcement
authorities (such as imminent and endangerment orders in applicable circumstances),
when federal facilities are not complying with the terms of the agreements or with other
legal requirements. Additionally, Regions and headquarters offices will work together to
get remaining NPL sites as well as new NPL sites under agreements or other legally-
enforceable agreements.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 24
-------
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Prevention Programs
Goal Three: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.2.1: Prepare for and Respond to Accidental and Intentional Releases
Administrator priorities supported by this national program include:
Cleaning Up Our Communities
Protecting America's Waters
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
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 (NCP). The NCP was first published in 1968 to provide a federal
blueprint for a coordinated approach among responsible parties and local, State, and
federal responders for coping with potential oil spills in U.S. waters. Over the years,
revisions have been made to the NCP to keep pace with the enactment of legislation.
Following the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980, EPA and other federal agencies were provided
increased authority and funds to respond to a release or substantial threat of a release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant into the environment, not just to the waters
of the United States. Accordingly, the NCP was broadened to cover emergency response
and removal actions to releases at hazardous waste sites.
Removal actions are of three types: (1) emergency, where action is required within hours
or days; (2) time-critical, where timely action must begin to protect human health or the
environment and the lead agency has up to six months to plan the response action; and (3)
non-time-critical, where the lead action has at least six months to plan the response
action.
EPA's mission is to respond to immediate threats from releases of hazardous substances
and oil. The first priority is to eliminate any danger to the public. EPA will continue a
strong emergency response and removal program, tailored to work with and complement
the varying capabilities of local and state agencies for responding to the types of oil and
hazardous substances releases that occur in their Region. The program acts as a federal
safety net to allow for response to immediate threats when such response is necessary
(e.g., when the nature, size or complexity of a spill is beyond the capacity or capabilities
of the state or local responders). In order to maintain a high state of effective response
readiness and improve our capabilities to protect human health and the environment, in
FY 2011 using the NCP criteria, Regions will continue to respond to high priority
hazardous substance releases and oil discharges.
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's
cleanup programs, EPA initiated its "Integrated Cleanup Initiative, " a multiyear effort
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 25
-------
to better use 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 (Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities and Brownfields), EPA will
better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites.
One example of leveraging is the use of Superfund Removal resources to assist
brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. Specifically, this connection will allow the
Agency to utilize the removal program, when appropriate and in accordance with the
applicable statutory criteria, as a resource to assist communities with some or all of the
cleanup activities at brownfields sites where cleanup monies are not otherwise available.
This connection will be particularly productive when the Removal program is activated in
conjunction with a Targeted Brownfields Assessment and in those instances will allow
the Agency to target both assessment and cleanup resources to help a state, tribe or
community assess, clean and redevelop a contaminated site where other resources are not
available. The Brownfields program will activate its resources to help bring completed
removal action sites into productive reuse. These resources can include further site
characterization, technical assistance with necessary institutional controls, community
engagement and site end use planning.
To prepare for large-scale responses to incidents such as the World Trade Center, the
anthrax attacks, and Hurricane Katrina, the Agency instituted its National Approach to
Response (NAR). The NAR emphasizes the need to provide the necessary levels and
appropriate types of support during major responses and greater consistency across the
Regions in emergency response capabilities. Preparedness on a national level is essential
to ensure that emergency responders are capable of managing multiple, large-scale
emergencies. EPA will improve its capability to effectively prepare for and respond to
these incidents, working under its statutory authorities and, for major high-consequence
incidents, will work closely with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other
government agencies within the National Response Framework (NRF).
As part of enhancing its readiness capabilities, EPA is continually working to improve
internal and external coordination and communication mechanisms. For example, EPA's
National Incident Coordination Team brings together various program offices during a
response to ensure coordination of all Agency activities. Under the Continuity of
Operations/Continuity of Government program, EPA continually upgrades and evaluates
plans, facilities, training, and equipment to ensure that essential government business can
continue during a catastrophic emergency.
EPA will continue to improve its capability to respond effectively to incidents that may
involve harmful chemical, oil, biological, and radiological substances. The Agency will
explore improvements in field equipment, response training and exercises, and technical
capabilities. We also will review response data provided in "after-action" reports
prepared by EPA emergency responders following a release and examine "lessons
learned" reports to identify which activities work and which need to be improved.
Application of this information and other data will advance the Agency's state-of-the-art
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 26
-------
emergency response operations.
Given limited resources, it is clear that our activities must focus on getting high risk
facilities into compliance as well as addressing our preparedness to respond to high
risk/high consequence scenarios as identified by the DHS. There is also a need for
collection and analysis of quality data, so that we can learn more about the results
associated with prevention and preparedness activities and their effect on the prevention
of releases and mitigation of the consequences. These data-related activities involve
coordinated use of technology to ensure the data can be shared and analyzed across the
key emergency management activities and the various agent scenarios. We will continue
to work with our partners at the local, state and federal levels to ensure that we are
focusing on the areas where Agency support is most required.
Facility Oil Spill Preparedness and Prevention
The amended Clean Water Act requires facilities with certain quantities of oil to prepare
Facility Response Plans (FRPs) and submit them to EPA (or other appropriate federal
agencies) for review and approval. Approximately 4,000 facilities must submit FRPs to
EPA. EPA uses information in the FRPs to develop Area Contingency Plans under the
National Contingency Plan. EPA inspects FRP facilities and conducts unannounced
drills to test facility preparedness.
The Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulation under the Clean
Water Act requires covered facilities to take specific steps to prevent and contain oil
spills. EPA estimates that approximately 600,000 facilities are subject to the SPCC
regulation. On November 5, 2009, EPA amended certain requirements of the SPCC rule
in order to address additional areas of regulatory reform that have been raised by the
regulated community.12 EPA inspects approximately 1,000 SPCC facilities each year.
Strategic Measures:
Removal: By 2014, oversee an additional 850 potentially responsible party (PRP)
removal completions, including voluntary, administrative orders on consent
(AOC), and unilateral administrative order (UAO) actions.
Removal: By 2014, complete an additional 850 Superfund-lead hazardous
substance removal actions.
Oil: By 2014, reduce by 15 percent the number of gallons spilled at FRP facilities
relative to the annual average of 1.73 million gallons spilled from 2004-2008.
Homeland Security: By 2014, achieve and maintain at least 75 percent of the
maximum score on the Core NAR evaluation criteria.
Performance Goals for FY 2011:
Removal: PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC, and UAO
12 For more information on EPA's final SPCC rule, please see
http://epa.gov/emergencies/co ntent/spcc/spcc_nov09amend.htm
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 27
-------
actions) overseen by EPA. (target 170).
Removal: Superfund-lead removal actions completed (target: 170).
Oil: Percent of all SPCC facilities found to be non-compliant which will be
brought into compliance, (target: 30%).
Oil: Percent of all FRP facilities found to be non-compliant which will be
brought into compliance, (target: 30%).
Homeland Security: Score for Core NAR evaluation, (target: 60%)
Efficiency Measures:
Removal: Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually per million dollars
(target: 0.96).
Oil: Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million program dollars spent
annually on prevention and preparedness at Facility Response Plan (FRP)
facilities (target: 81,000).
SUPPORTING CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS,
AND RESPONSE AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVELS
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Subobjective 4.1.2: Reduce Chemical Risks at Facilities and in Communities
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA, also
known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act), created
requirements for state and local planning and preparedness for chemical emergencies, and
for public access to information concerning potential chemical hazards. State Emergency
Response Commissions (SERCs) establish Local Emergency Planning Committees
(LEPCs) that use information about chemicals in the community to develop
comprehensive emergency plans. In addition, tribes can establish Tribal Emergency
Response Commissions (TERCs).
There are more than 3,000 LEPCs nationwide. EPA has supported this program with
guidance, technical assistance, and some limited grants. EPA also worked with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop and provide the
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) software to these
committees free of charge. According to the latest LEPC Survey conducted in 2008,
LEPCs and SERCs are continuing to address their responsibilities under EPCRA and
some have expanded their activities to address homeland security.
In 1990, section 112(r) of the amended Clean Air Act (CAA) established requirements
regarding the prevention and detection of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. The
Risk Management program established under those requirements is an extension of the
EPCRA planning and preparedness programs. Facilities that handle certain quantities of
regulated substances must develop risk management plans (RMPs) and submit them to
EPA. In turn, EPA makes RMPs available to state agencies, LEPCs, and the public.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 28
-------
Facilities first submitted RMPs in 1999 and updates are required at least every 5 years
and more frequently as changes are made at the facility.
RMPs must include the following: an assessment of potential off-site consequences of an
accidental release from a facility, a history of releases that have occurred at the facility, a
program to prevent accidental releases and an emergency response program that is
coordinated with the LEPC in the area where the facility is located.
EPA, working with states, tribes, local communities, industry, and other federal agencies,
oversees these programs with the perspective that:
Operators of facilities who have hazardous chemicals are primarily responsible
for the safe handling of those chemicals; and,
State, tribal and local governments (as well as the community) play a critical role
in risk reduction as well as mitigating the effects of chemical accidents.
In order to continue to assist state, local and tribal governments and industry in reducing
the risks from chemical accidents or mitigating the effects of those accidents should they
occur, EPA will:
Continue to provide guidance, tools, and technical assistance to states, tribes,
local communities, and industry to better enable them to reduce risk;
Analyze existing RMP data as well as data gathered from audits to understand
potential chemical risks and the causes and effects of releases; and
Assist states, tribes, local communities, and industry in understanding how these
chemical risks could affect communities, and how to reduce risk and prepare to
address and mitigate risks should a chemical accident occur.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish a system to audit and inspect RMPs. The
audit/inspection system is used to continuously assess the quality of risk management
programs, gather information on chemical risks, and check compliance with the
requirements. All of these elements of the audit/inspection system assist in improving
RMPs and reducing chemical risks. In the past, EPA established numerical
audit/inspection targets without regard to the level of facility risk. Recently, however,
there have been a number of developments relating to high-risk hazardous chemical
facilities that warrant increased focus by the Agency on the implementation of accident
prevention and emergency planning and response regulations at such facilities.
In April 2007, DHS published the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS)
in 6 CFR Part 27. In developing the CFATS regulations, DHS relied significantly on the
data collected by EPA under the CAA Section 112(r) Risk Management Program and
incorporated the RMP list of chemicals and threshold quantities in its criteria for
determining high-risk facilities. EPA believes that having well-implemented risk
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 29
-------
management programs at such facilities will further the aims of both CAA Section 112(r)
and the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
In light of continuing concerns regarding public safety, and in response to a recent
evaluation conducted by the Inspector General, headquarters has developed criteria for
determining which facilities pose a greater risk to human health and the environment.
Regions should consider the following factors in focusing their compliance monitoring
and enforcement efforts. In some cases, a Region may wish to add or modify these
criteria in order to address its individual priorities and concerns:
Facilities whose reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds 100,000
people;
Facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the
previous five years; and/or
Any RMP facility with a hazard index greater than or equal to 25.
EPA collects information on the number of RMP audits and/or facility inspections
completed each year. In addition to conducting inspections and audits at known RMP
facilities, EPA also inspects facilities to determine whether they are subject to the Risk
Management Plan (RMP) rule using its authority under the Clean Air Act. Since these
inspections assist in improving compliance with the RMP program and result in the
discovery of RMP non-filers, these inspections can be counted in the RMP audit and
inspections Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measure in the EPA's
Annual Commitments System (ACS). Additionally, EPA will begin counting inspections
at high-risk RMP facilities as a subset of the overall inspection target.
The performance target for the overall number of RMP audits/inspections is 400 per year.
The performance target for the subset of high-risk facility inspections is 80 per year. At
the end of the fiscal year, Regions must break out and report the number of high-risk
facility inspections completed, as well as the total number of non-filer inspections
completed and the number of RMP covered facilities identified (i.e., non-filers) as a
result of these inspections. Under GPRA, EPA has set the following two strategic targets
for the RMP program:
Strategic Measure:
By 2014, conduct 2,400 inspections and audits at RMP facilities.
Performance Goal for FY 2011:
Number of risk management audits/inspections completed (target 400).
Useful websites:
Office of Emergency Management http ://www. epa.gov/oem
National Response Team (NRT) http://www.nrt.org
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 30
-------
Brownfields Cleanup and Land Revitalization Program
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Subobjective 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields
Administrator priorities supported by this national program include:
Cleaning Up Our Communities
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice
Protecting America's Waters
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
EPA's Brownfields program will continue to facilitate the cleanup, redevelopment and
restoration of brownfields properties. Under the Brownfields Law (Public Law 107-118,
"Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act"13), brownfields are
defined (with certain exclusions) as real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or
reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Brownfield properties include, for example,
abandoned industrial sites, drug labs, mine-scarred land, or sites contaminated with
petroleum or petroleum products. Through its Brownfields program, EPA will continue
to provide for the assessment and cleanup of these properties, to leverage redevelopment
opportunities, and to help preserve green space, offering combined benefits to local
communities.
Strategic Measures:
Working with state, tribal, and local partners, promote the assessment, cleanup, and
sustainable reuse of brownfields properties.
EPA's proposed targets by 2014, conduct environmental assessments at 18,800
(cumulative) properties, make an additional 11,700 acres of brownfields ready for
reuse from the 2007 baseline. By 2014, leverage $17.7 billion (cumulative) in
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment funding at brownfields properties.
Note: Performance estimates and results from $100 million received to implement the
ARRA are tracked separately and described below.
Performance Goals for FY 2011:
Number of brownfields properties assessed (target: 1,000).
Number of brownfields properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding (target:
60).
Acres of brownfields property made ready for reuse (target: 1,000).
13 Signed in January 2002, for more information on Public Law 107-118 go to
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps^f/sblrbra.htm.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 31
-------
Number of jobs leveraged at brownfields sites (target: 5,000).
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at brownfields
sites (target: $0.9).
Number of tribes supported by Brownfields cooperative agreements (no target).
Brownfields Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Job Training Grants
EPA will continue to provide Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Job
Training cooperative agreements to communities. Brownfields Assessment cooperative
agreements provide funding to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and
community involvement activities related to brownfields sites. Brownfields Revolving
Loan Fund cooperative agreements provide funding for a grantee to capitalize a revolving
loan and for a grantee to make subgrants to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield
sites. EPA has requested supplemental funding for existing high performing Revolving
Loan Fund recipients giving greater priority to those that have "shovel ready" projects in
or around "cities in transition." This request includes additional full time equivalents to
efficiently administer resources to economically disadvantaged and distressed
communities. Brownfields Cleanup cooperative agreements will fund cleanup activities
at brownfield sites owned by grant recipients. EPA also will provide funding to create
local environmental job training programs to enhance the economic benefits, derived
from brownfield revitalization efforts, to the community.
EPA will publish proposal guidelines, solicit proposals, conduct a national competition,
announce, and award Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund, and Job Training
cooperative agreements. To ensure a fair selection process, evaluation panels consisting
of EPA regional and headquarters staff and other federal agency representatives will
assess how well the proposals meet the selection criteria outlined in the statute and the
proposal guidelines. Final selections will be made by EPA senior management after
considering the ranking of proposals by the evaluation panels. The statute requires that
funds be directed to the highest ranking proposals.
Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, Cleanup
and Job Training cooperative agreements are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/applicat.htm.
Following award, EPA will assist grantees in achieving specific objectives as agreed
upon in the project work plan. EPA will conduct post award monitoring activities to
ensure the successful implementation of projects. Cooperative agreement terms and
conditions require grantees to complete Property Profile Forms or Job Training Forms.
Using these forms, EPA will collect information on property acreage, assessment
completion date, whether cleanup is necessary, cleanup completion date, status of
institutional controls and engineering controls, leveraged jobs, and leveraged dollars.
Reporting forms are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/index.html.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 32
-------
Recipients of Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund cooperative agreements, and
Job Training cooperative agreements will be able to submit Property Profile Form and/or
Job Training Reporting Form data electronically using the Assessment, Cleanup, and
Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES). EPA Regions will verify data submitted by
grantees in the ACRES system. Grantees that do not have capability for electronic
reporting will be able to submit paper forms.
By FY 2012, EPA anticipates that the requested FY 2011 funds will yield an increase of
10 more properties being cleaned up, 300 acres being made ready for reuse, and an
increase in the number of jobs leveraged. Once the cooperative agreements are awarded,
the Agency will further refine targets as more data becomes available.
EPA has set a new High Priority Performance Goal, to initiate 20 Brownfields
community-level projects as part of an enhanced effort to benefit under-served and
economically disadvantaged communities. This will allow those communities to assess
and address multiple brownfields sites within their boundaries, thereby advancing area-
wide planning and cleanups and enabling redevelopment of brownfields properties on a
broader scale than on individual sites. 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. Quarterly measures will
be established and progress will be reported to the White House.
To facilitate this effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR) will request applications for assistance
under the Brownfields Area-Wide Planning Assistance Pilot Program. The Brownfields
Area-Wide Planning Assistance Pilot Program is designed to provide support by helping
selected applicants 1) develop an area-wide plan, and 2) determine next steps and identify
resources needed to implement the plan. The program, through grants and contract
vehicles:
- will provide assistance to selected applicants for area-wide planning within a
specific brownfields-impacted area, such as a neighborhood, district, or corridor,
aims to connect redevelopment of individual parcels to their neighborhood and
city-wide contexts, and
- provides a flexible planning framework for selected applicants to catalyze the
redevelopment of brownfields and affected areas through a locally-driven
planning process.
The resulting area-wide plan will facilitate the assessment, cleanup and reuse of
individual brownfields properties and identify area-wide investment improvements to
revitalize the community.
Brownfields State and Tribal Response Programs Grants
EPA will continue to work in partnership with state and tribal programs to address
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 33
-------
brownfield properties. The Agency will provide states and tribes with tools, information,
and funding they can use to develop response programs that will address environmental
assessment, cleanup, characterization, and redevelopment needs at sites contaminated
with hazardous wastes and petroleum. The Agency will continue to encourage the
empowerment of state, tribal, and local environmental and economic development
officials to oversee brownfield activities and the implementation of local solutions to
local problems with an emphasis on benefitting economically distressed and
disadvantaged communities. EPA will publish an annual guidance regarding the criteria
for state funding.
Grant Funding Guidance for State and Tribal Response programs (CERCLA)
Section 128(a) is available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/swerosps/bf/state_tribal/fund_guide.htm.
Following award, EPA will assist grantees in achieving specific objectives as agreed
upon in the project work plan. EPA will conduct post-award monitoring activities to
ensure the successful implementation of projects. Grantees will complete Property
Profile Forms to document completion of site specific assessments and cleanups. Using
these forms, EPA will collect information on property acreage, assessment completion
date, whether cleanup is necessary, cleanup completion date, the status of institutional
controls and engineering controls, jobs leveraged and dollars leveraged.
Reporting forms are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/index.html.
State and tribal response program cooperative agreements contribute to the Brownfields
program overall accomplishments. The Property Profile Forms submitted by state and
tribal recipients for site-specific assessments and cleanups, conducted with CERCLA 128
funds, contribute to the "Properties Assessed" and "Properties Cleaned Up" measures.
There are no separate state or tribal specific targets for the "Properties Assessed" and
"Properties Cleaned Up" measures. Therefore, for the state grant measures in Attachment
2, the Brownfields national program will report out the overall program
accomplishments. Regions should not set state or tribal-specific targets.
Program Priorities and Initiatives
Integrated Cleanup Initiative
In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's
cleanup programs, EPA initiated its, "Integrated Cleanup Initiative," a multiyear effort in
2010 to better use 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 (Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities and Brownfields),
EPA will better leverage the resources available to address needs at individual sites.
One example of leveraging is the use of Superfund Removal resources to assist
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 34
-------
brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. Specifically, this connection will allow the
Agency to utilize the removal program, when appropriate and in accordance with the
applicable statutory criteria, as a resource to assist communities with some or all of the
cleanup activities at brownfields sites where cleanup monies are not otherwise available.
This connection will be particularly productive when the Removal program is activated in
conjunction with a Targeted Brownfields Assessment and in those instances will allow
the Agency to target both assessment and cleanup resources to help a state, tribe or
community assess, clean and redevelop a contaminated site where other resources are not
available. The Brownfields program will activate its resources to help bring completed
removal action sites into productive reuse. These resources can include further site
characterization, technical assistance with necessary institutional controls, community
engagement and site end use planning.
In addition to furthering the Agency's primary goal of protecting the environment and
public health, this approach will provide economic revitalization and job creation. This
approach, and the additional resources requested, will, beginning in FY 2012, result in an
increase in the numbers of brownfields sites cleaned, acres made ready for reuse, and jobs
leveraged.
Federal Partners
EPA is committed to working and developing partnerships internally and externally to
help communities address contaminated properties and create sustainable communities.
US EPA - US DOT- US HUD Sustainable Communities Partnership: In June 2009,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency joined together to
form the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an unprecedented agreement to
coordinate federal housing, transportation and environmental investments, protect public
health and the environment, promote equitable development, and help address the
challenges of climate change. The agencies are working together to identify opportunities
to build more sustainable communities and to remove policy or other barriers that have
kept Americans from doing so. The Brownfields and Land Revitalization program is a
key member of this partnership, committing to identify five sites across the country
where there is a convergence of brownfields redevelopment, transit oriented
development, and affordable housing, providing an opportunity for HUD, DOT and EPA
to work together to provide technical assistance to promote redevelopment.
US EPA USDA Urban Agricultural Partnership: EPA will work in partnership with
the breadth of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies to link brownfield
revitalization with efforts to strengthen urban agriculture and local food systems and to
improve food access in high risk brownfield communities. Examples of program areas to
strengthen urban agriculture and improve food access include developing a process for
communities to identify safe sites for urban agriculture model testing and soil sampling
regimes for environmental contaminants and optimum soil growing conditions and
providing innovative growing alternatives such as greenhouses, green walls and green
roofs, safe soil sources and food waste composting systems to assist communities in
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 35
-------
recognizing the value of soil amendments and economic opportunities of certified soil
sources as an alternative to fill materials.
Linking revitalization efforts to local, regional and national food discussion can help
contribute to more healthy and sustainable communities and increase market
opportunities such as farmer's markets that strengthen local economies and small
businesses and support local and regional farming, food production or manufacture,
where feasible.
Cities in Transition: EPA will work directly with HUD, DOT, USDA and other federal
agencies to identify "Cities in Transition" that can benefit from focused technical
assistance and potential funding to facilitate area wide planning for transit oriented
development, affordable housing, remediation of contaminated sites, and development of
vacant or formerly contaminated lands in distressed communities for urban agriculture.
EPA will also provide technical assistance to encourage the siting of renewable energy
facilities on formerly contaminated lands. This would be unique and the first time
OSWER and the Smart Growth program work jointly with these other agencies to assist a
selected sector of community need.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and Brownfields
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, EPA received $100
million in supplemental appropriation for the Brownfields program. The funding went
toward awarding brownfields assessment, cleanup, new and supplemental Revolving
Loan Fund (RLF) and job training cooperative agreements through a competitive process
and providing technical assistance and targeted brownfields assessments to brownfields
communities via regional contracts and Interagency Agreements (IA). Activities to be
performed under these cooperative agreements include, but are not limited to, (1)
environmental assessment to identify the contaminants at brownfields sites and initiate
cleanup planning; (2) direct cleanup of brownfield sites; (3) community involvement
activities for site selection, cleanup and reuse planning; and (4) training participants in
the handling and removal of hazardous substances, including training for jobs in
sampling, analysis, and site cleanup. EPA awarded $87.3 million to communities to
assess and clean up contaminated land through cooperative agreements. The Brownfields
program distributed and will manage $9.2 million to provide targeted brownfields
assessments in communities. The remaining $3.5 million is being used by EPA for
federal management and oversight purposes.
EPA anticipates assessing an additional 500 properties, cleaning up an additional
30 properties, making an additional 500 acres ready for reuse, leveraging an additional
2,500 jobs and leveraging an additional $450,000,000 dollars by 2012. The Brownfields
and Land Revitalization program will continue to monitor and work with ARRA
recipients to ensure timely and accurate reporting to EPA to document and report ARRA
results.
Improving the connection between job training and job creation
The Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR) will work, through grant
guidelines revisions, public outreach and stronger communications to strengthen the
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 36
-------
connection between Brownfields resources and job creation in communities. These
activities will, for example, help guide funding decisions for brownfield grants to
applicants with firm plans to hire from EPA's Brownfields Job Training Program. Also,
they will provide information to environmental contractors on opportunities to hire job
training program graduates.
Improving the connection between Brownfields site assessments and cleanup and
redevelopment
The OBLR has been very successful in delivering resources to communities, states and
tribal governments for Brownfields site assessments. Beginning in 2011, the program
will undertake a program evaluation to determine if these assessment resources are
effectively leading to cleanup and reuse of the brownfield sites, and to find ways to
strengthen the critical link between site assessment, site cleanup and site reuse
Improving the timing of delivery of Brownfields grant resources to successful
applicants
The OBLR will work to make more efficient and timely the delivery of grant resources to
successful applicants, including the selection process, the award and post award process.
Air and Water quality impacts
EPA is researching the air and water quality impacts to show that brownfield/infill
development results in significant environmental benefits, when compared to developing
on greenfields. The Brownfields program conducted five pilot studies based on
recommendations on developing environmental indicators from a previous study, which
conclude that redeveloped brownfield sites tend to have greater location efficiency than
alternative development scenarios at greenfield sites, resulting in reduced Vehicle Miles
Traveled for trips associated with these sites ranging from 21% - 58% with an average of
45%, and a concomitant reduction in air pollution emissions, including greenhouse gases.
Storm-water runoff estimates from the same location pairs show a reduction of 44%-
88%. There is a range of impacts due to regional variation in development and travel
patterns. The program will determine the feasibility to conduct a full national scale study
of the environmental benefits of brownfield/infill development.
Supporting the Agency's Urban Waters Initiative
The OBLR will help coordinate OSWER's partnership with the Office of Water in the
Agency's Urban Waters Initiative. The Office will be particularly involved in helping to
engage other Federal Partners in this important effort to protect the country's urban
waters and to ensure that communities have access to these waters. Further, OSWER's
role in land cleanup and reuse in communities surrounding these waters will be critical in
the success of the initiative, by offering technical assistance and, where possible
resources for the assessment, cleanup and reuse planning for contaminated sites in these
communities.
Public Health and Brownfields
EPA is re-emphasizing its commitment to economically distressed or disadvantaged
communities in its practice of directing brownfield grants to environmental justice and
poor communities in greatest need with highest risk population that can most benefit
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 37
-------
from our technical assistance, support and grant funding. Increasingly, local
governments applying for grant funds allocate a portion of their grant (<10%) to support
health monitoring of populations exposed to contaminants from a brownfield site. EPA
will continue to conduct outreach and training to public health agencies and brownfield
grantees so they recognize they may involve their local, county or state health department
in the brownfield assessment and cleanup process to identify priority site-related
environmental hazards to public health. In addition to providing support for health
monitoring, public health agency involvement can help align cleanup and revitalization
efforts to address broader health needs and improve public and community health. These
community needs may include an improved and accessible built environment for all ages
and abilities, increased affordable and accessible housing or assisted living facilities,
increased parks or recreational spaces, expanded services and amenities such as full
service grocery stores, pharmacies, community health clinics, or private health care
provider services, particularly in Health and Human Services (HHS)-designated
'medically underserved areas'.
EPA will continue to work in partnership with the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to
provide technical support and assistance to brownfield communities regarding public
health issues and impacts of revitalization, by facilitating a direct connection between
local public health officials and brownfields grantees related to the cleanup and reuse
plans for brownfields sites. EPA will also work with these and other public health
agencies and our state and tribal partners to identify and document experience, best
practices and evidence-based approaches to improve public health and environmental
protection through brownfield revitalization
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 38
-------
RCRA Waste Management Programs
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
Administrator priorities supported by this national program include:
Taking Action on Climate Change
Cleaning Up Our Communities
Protecting America's Waters
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
The RCRA program will emphasize its strategy to conserve resources and reduce waste,
priority chemicals, energy and greenhouse gas emissions through effective lifecycle -
based materials management. The Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), one of
OSWER's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery's (ORCR's) highest priorities,
continues to be a principal mechanism for achieving these objectives. Regions will be
expected to champion and support the four national RCC focus areas:
Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW);
Green initiatives: electronics, green building, and lifecycle - based materials
management;
Reuse and recycling of industrial materials; and
Reducing priority chemicals (covered under sub-objective 5.2.1).
Recycling of MSW
Beginning in FY 2009, ORCR and the Regions began implementing a long-term
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goal to reduce, reuse or recycle 80
billion pounds of MSW by 2011. This goal is composed of a recycling target of
approximately 20 billion pounds annually over a four year period (2008-2011). This
long-term goal more directly reflects EPA's influence, resources, and contributions to the
nation's goal of increasing municipal solid waste recycling.
The MSW measure also reflects the intent to put forth goals which are reflective of MSW
programs at both the national and the regional level. Regional commitments will be
tracked in ACS under the measure, "Pounds of MSW reduced, reused or recycled."
During 2010, ORCR will continue to evaluate MSW measurement and determine if
improved, more transparent methods of measuring MSW recycling are available. Results
of this work may affect future MSW measures and targets.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 39
-------
EPA Regions and ORCR will continue to focus their primary MSW recycling efforts on
the three targeted materials: paper, organics (particularly food waste), and
packaging/containers. Regions should also actively recruit new WasteWise partners, and
work with them to help reduce waste and to show the corresponding GHG reduction
benefits. For FY 2011, ORCR is requesting that all Regions identify ACS commitments
in the area of MSW recycling that contribute toward national recycling goals, energy
conservation and greenhouse gas reductions.
EPA Regions should base their FY 2011 ACS MSW recycling commitments primarily on
what they expect to accomplish through their Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) and
extramural dollars. WasteWise partner accomplishments, as outlined in the WasteWise
apportionment paper, also may be factored into ACS MSW recycling commitments.
Regions also should work closely with states to support and complement state and local
efforts.
In these key areas, we have begun to identify measures and targets that will demonstrate
the positive benefits of this program. OSWER will continue to track energy conservation
and greenhouse gas reduction benefits associated with our efforts to manage materials.
This measure is expressed in terms of British thermal units (BTUs) of energy conserved
and metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2E) of green house gas emissions
reduced by the RCC. EPA Regions and HQ will continue to work together to determine
the best steps to take to conserve resources and divert more materials to reuse and
recycling.
Green Initiatives
Electronics
EPA has several approaches for promoting reuse and recycling of electronic equipment.
The Responsible Recycling Practices for Electronics Recyclers is completed, and Regions
should work with states and recyclers to make them familiar with these guidelines, and
other guidelines that encourage responsible recycling. Regions should also make
recyclers aware of the requirements of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) rule, identifying a
regional contact to receive the notices. Regions can help to advance the Plugln to
eCycling program through recruiting additional Plugln partners and encouraging and
supporting recycling events, and providing outreach on recycling televisions under the
TV Challenge for the Digital transition, and the cell phone recycling campaign.
More states have been enacting and exploring E-Waste Recycling programs and laws in
recent years. We are working to track implementation, including exports and responsible
recycling practices, as well as problems arising from the emerging patchwork of state
laws. Under the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC), EPA will work toward Gold
achievement for its own facilities and provide assistance to other federal agencies on
meeting FEC goals. The Regions should continue to participate in national projects,
including the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) and the
Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator and pilot projects with broad national
implications, such as the State Electronics Challenge developed through a grant to the
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 40
-------
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA), as well as discussions
on national program direction.
Green Building
The development and implementation of the Agency's Green Building Strategy present
opportunities for ORCR and the EPA Regions to promote materials management in
building design, construction, operation, and end-of-life. To support the Agency's Green
Building Strategy, in FY 2011, ORCR and EPA Regions will continue ongoing efforts to
green commercial buildings, stadiums and other venues, and infrastructure projects
through various RCC programs and initiatives.
Lifecycle-Based Materials Management
The materials and products that are part of our everyday life - packages, buildings,
automobiles, food, clothing, etc. - have environmental impacts at all stages of the
material life cycle (raw material extraction, manufacturing, product use, and end-of-use
management). These impacts include consumption of energy and water, emission of
toxic constituents and greenhouse gases, and loss of soil and habitat.
Because our use of materials is large, and increasing with population and economic
growth, we are increasingly concerned about the continued availability of a relatively
small number of critical minerals and biological resources (e.g., fish, clean water);
however, the larger problem may be the capacity of the environment to absorb the
growing impacts to air, water and land that are created directly and indirectly throughout
the life-cycle stages of the materials that we use, including mining and extraction,
processing, transport, manufacture, use, and recycling, reuse or disposal. Lifecycle
impacts and consequences are not always immediately obvious, but they are profound.
Society must take meaningful actions to manage materials more carefully in order to
minimize environmental impacts and at the same time promote job growth. These
meaningful actions must focus on (1) knowing and reducing the lifecycle impacts across
the supply chain; (2) using less material inputs (reduce, reuse, recycle); (3) using less
toxic and more renewable materials; and (4) considering whether services can be
substituted for products. ORCR is currently developing or initiating materials
management projects to:
demonstrate the life cycle implications of consumer packaging and construction &
demolition materials,
develop guidance for use and disclosure of life cycle analysis (LCA) in
environmental claims made on products and materials, and
sustainable financing of municipal recycling to shift the cost burden for recovery
of packaging materials from tax payers to producers, and ultimately to product
consumers.
In FY 2011, these efforts will support EPA's Healthy Communities initiative to promote
reducing, reusing, and recycling waste for sustainable communities.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 41
-------
Industrial Materials Reuse and Recycling Program
ORCR, working with the Regions, developed a draft Industrial Materials Recycling
(IMR) 3-Year Strategy. EPA Regions and ORCR will continue working on the priority
activities that build on that strategy throughout FY 2011. We also are working together
to improve our construction and demolition materials data and measures. The industrial
materials recycling program will continue its primary focus on safe uses of coal
combustion products (CCPs), construction and demolition (C&D) materials, and foundry
sands, but will also look for opportunities to increase reuse of slags, scrap tires, pulp and
paper manufacturing residuals, and other materials. Recycling these materials can
conserve resources, reduce energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and costs; and enhance
green construction. Regions should continue to develop effective working relationships
with state environmental, transportation, and agriculture agencies in order to foster
collaborative efforts to share information, enhance decision-making, and coordinate
projects in these areas. EPA will continue to partner with the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials' Beneficial Use Task Force, other federal
agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and U.S. Department of Energy, and as appropriate, with business and industry
stakeholders.
Measuring and reporting on success is a critical component of any credible program. Our
FY 2010 and FY 2011 annual targets are to increase the percentage use of CCPs by 1.4
percent each year from the previous year's results. These targets reflect a decrease from
prior year targets related to the decision to delete mine filling from the category of
beneficial uses of CCP. We will track progress for the CCP goal at the national level;
however, Regions will play a role by fostering the use of CCPs in construction and
agriculture applications.
ORCR reviewed existing state data to determine whether it could be used to provide a
national measurement. Given the lack of existing data on C&D materials generation,
recycling, and disposal, ORCR and EPA Regions decided to remove the existing goal for
C&D materials. ORCR and the Regions will continue to work with the state
environmental agencies and industry to develop credible, annually-produced estimates of
national C&D materials generation, recycling, and disposal.
During FY 2011, Regions should build on their prior successes by continuing to increase
the reuse and recycling of industrial materials in an environmentally sound manner.
EPA Regions with specific projects on foundry sands, slags, tires, and other industrial
materials underway should continue to make progress in these areas. EPA Regions
should encourage the reuse or recycling of industrial materials in building and
transportation construction projects in conjunction with other Agency green building
programs and priorities, including projects funded under the authority of ARRA.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 42
-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum Products Properly
In FY 2011, the permitting program has a goal to collectively achieve 100 additional
hazardous waste facilities under initial or updated approved controls (about 20% of the
GPRA facilities needing initial and updated controls). Since all but two states are
authorized to issue permits, and because states receive grant funds to implement the
RCRA hazardous waste program, Regions must work with states to:
Update and implement multi-year strategies to meet the FY 2011 annual goal and
the FY 2011 and 2014 strategic goals.
Update assessments of what is needed for each facility to achieve approved
controls and update when each facility is projected to achieve approved controls.
Consider risk and environmental justice in determining the prioritization of
facilities to be addressed in the multi-year strategies.
Regions should work with the states toward achieving the FY 2011 national strategic
target of preventing releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities by
implementing initial approved controls or updated controls. This should result in getting
at least 98 percent of the facilities on the permitting baseline under approved controls
(removing facilities from interim status by issuing an initial RCRA Part B permit), and
updating controls at additional facilities, for a total of 500 facilities between FY 2007 and
FY 2011. During FY 2011, the regions should also work toward the FY 2014 strategic
goal of achieving 500 initial approved or updated controls which comprises FY 2010
through FY 2014 annual accomplishments. Attaining this goal will bring 56 percent of
the facilities that need initial or updated controls during this period under controls (based
on December 2009 data).
In 2004, OMB assessed the EPA's Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Waste
Management program. As an outcome of this assessment, a permitting efficiency
measure was created based on: (1) number of facilities with new or updated controls and
(2) permit costs and base program appropriations. Calculations for the baseline year
2007 were 2,484 facilities with new or updated controls at a cost of $689.71 million (3.60
facilities per million dollars of program cost). The efficiency measure target for FY
2011 is 3.75 facilities per million dollars of program cost, a 1% increase over the FY
2010 target.
Tribal Programs
EPA has significant responsibilities related to the safe management of solid and
hazardous waste in Indian country. Regions with federally-recognized tribes should
devote resources to assisting tribes, consistent with EPA's 2009-2014 Strategic Plan.
Regions will be expected to achieve the following targets during FY 2011:
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 43
-------
Assist tribal governments to ensure that an additional 22 tribes are covered by an
integrated waste management plan approved by an appropriate governing body;
Assist tribal governments to ensure that an additional 22 open dumps in Indian
country and on other tribal lands are closed, cleaned up, or upgraded.
The Indian Health Service (MS), in collaboration with EPA, customized the IHS
Operation and Maintenance Data System (OMDS) database, a subset of the web
Sanitation Tracking and Reporting System (w/STARS). The w/STARS database is the
official repository for EPA to hold all data on open dumps on tribal lands. With the
culmination of efforts to largely populate the database, Regions should continue in F Y
2011 to conduct any necessary site assessments, enter data for each open dump, and
perform any necessary data clean up.
Furthermore, EPA has provided information regarding the elements of an integrated
waste management plan which Regions should use when evaluating what plans should be
reflected in the ACS for this performance measure.
Environmental Justice
The ORCR embraces the Administrator's environmental justice priority and is committed
to promoting healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all people through its
RCRA waste management programs. To ensure that the goals of EJ are accomplished,
RCRA program staff should continue to incorporate EJ considerations into ongoing day-
to-day RCRA regulatory and non-regulatory activities under each of the sub-objectives
included in this section, promoting healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all
people. Moreover, RCRA regulatory and non-regulatory activities addressing EJ should
continue to be included in the EJ Action Plans that have measurable EJ components.
To facilitate continued integration of EJ considerations into RCRA programs, policies,
and activities, Regions should support and work closely with the states to ensure that:
1) Environmental regulations, applicable federal EJ policies, strategies, tools and training
programs are used to adequately address EJ concerns;
2) The public continues to have access to RCRA regulatory and non-regulatory
documents and data, particularly in high risk communities (e.g., multimedia data
integration projects, other studies, and communication/outreach activities);
3) Public input is solicited and considered (e.g., through periodic listening sessions,
outreach efforts, etc...), as appropriate, and during all phases of the RCRA permitting,
corrective action, and PCB decision-making processes;
4) RCRA policies, programs, and activities continue to address the concerns of the
potentially affected populations, including those living in minority and/or low-income
areas and on tribal lands;
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 44
-------
5) Environmental and human health improvements are achieved through effective waste
and materials management, particularly in minority and/or low income communities who
frequently may be exposed disproportionately to environmental harms and risk;
6) Workload priorities for progressing towards permitting and corrective action GPRA
goals include EJ areas of concern;
7) There is continued emphasis on participation in collaborative problem solving with
other federal, state, tribal, and/or local agencies to address EJ concerns; in EJ training
efforts; and in national, state, tribal, or local dialogue around the issue of EJ (i.e., NEJAC,
Community Involvement Conference, Brownfields Conference, Regional Listening
Sessions, public meetings, etc.);
8) Innovative approaches that will empower disadvantaged communities to ensure
successful voluntary cleanups are developed or offered;
9) Issues such as cumulative risk, health disparities, and appropriate demographic issues
in the context of permit decisions, corrective action cleanups, PCB cleanup activities are
considered when feasible;
10) EJSEAT, EGAT, and other GIS tools are used when possible and practical as a
functional way to identify and prioritize "potential EJ areas of concern."
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land
The 2020 Corrective Action Universe lists all 3,746 facilities that may need cleanup
under the RCRA Corrective Action program. This list, which can be found online at
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/facility/index.htmtf2020, will serve
as the "RCRA Cleanup Baseline" for 2011. EPA's forthcoming 2009-2014 Strategic
Plan will commit the program to reaching specific percentages for three key measures at
these sites by 2014:
Control all identified unacceptable human exposures from site contamination to
health-based levels for current land and/or groundwater use conditions (Human
Exposures El)
Control the migration of contaminated groundwater (Groundwater El)
Complete construction of final remedies (Remedy Construction)
EPA's aspirational goal is to achieve 95 percent completion, for the 2020 Universe, for
all three goals by the end of FY 2020.
Performance Goals for FY 2011:
1. Human Exposures El - 72 percent (131 facilities)
2. Groundwater El - 64 percent (114 facilities)
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 45
-------
3. Remedy Construction - 38 percent (124 facilities)
Almost 2,000 facilities were added to the "RCRA Cleanup Baseline" in 2009, and
existing progress at these new facilities varied across Regions and states. As a result,
expecting all Regions and states to finish 2011 at the national percentage is unrealistic.
Regional targets that together add up to the national percentages will be set via the ACS
in the last two quarters of FY 2010.
Further Information
All Regions should work with states to achieve the FY 2011 targets. Planning
accomplishments for the year, as well as frequent discussions of progress with state
partners, will be essential to meeting program goals. Beyond planned accomplishments
for FY 2011, Regions should begin to lay the groundwork for future accomplishments. In
particular, discussions of how to move the Region's most difficult sites toward final
remedies are needed.
OECA encourages the Regions to use enforcement authorities and tools where
appropriate to address the aforementioned program goals. In addition, the Superfund and
RCRA Corrective Action enforcement program commitments for the financial assurance
priority are included in OECA's portion of the annual commitment system.
Each Region should also work with their states to promote making RCRA Ready for
Anticipated Use (RAU) determinations to support OSWER's Cross-Program
Revitalization measure. (See "Guidance for Documenting and Reporting RCRA Subtitle
C Corrective Action Land Revitalization Indicators and Measures" at
www.epa.gov/correctiveaction.) RAU determinations can now be recorded in RCRAInfo
through the CA800 event code.
The annual target for increasing the efficiency of the RCRA Corrective Action program
is a three percent increase in the number of remedy components constructed per federal,
state and private sector costs. Given cost projections, each Region should work with its
states to increase the number of final remedy components constructed during FY 2011 by
roughly three percent over FY 2010 levels to help the program meet its efficiency target.
The number of final remedy components constructed is measured by the total number of
area-specific and facility-wide construction (CAS 50) events recorded in RCRAInfo each
fiscal year.
PCBs
In an effort to improve program and administrative efficiencies, the management of the
poly-chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) cleanup and disposal program was transferred from
EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) to the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) in FY 2008. OPPTS is continuing to
oversee PCB issues relating to use and manufacturing, and OSWER is managing the PCB
cleanup and disposal program under the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 46
-------
Act (TSCA) and its regulations. As a result, OSWER is now issuing disposal approvals
that are designated by regulation to be issued by EPA headquarters (e.g., for mobile PCB
treatment units operating in more than one region). During FY 2011, Regions are
expected to continue to issue approvals for PCB cleanup and disposal as required under
40 CFR Part 761. ORCR is assessing the current ACS measures and will be working
with the Regions to update for FY 2011.
In FY 2011, efforts in this program area will support the EPA's Healthy Communities
Initiative. We will work with our partners to promote safe handling and management of
PCB-containing caulk in schools while building necessary regional technical support and
outreach to effectively implement site-specific cleanup and disposal plans.
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Subobjective 5.2.1: Prevent Pollution and Promote Environmental Stewardship
Reduction of Priority Chemicals and Chemicals of National Concern
The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) is the RCRA program
focused on the waste minimization of potentially hazardous chemicals. NPEP is also a
key component of the RCC.
Strategic Measure:
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.
Performance Goal for FY 2011:
Number of pounds reduced (in millions) of priority chemicals as reported by National
Partnership for Environmental Priorities members (target: 0.75)
In FY 2011 EPA will continue to achieve NPEP reductions of priority chemicals goals by
identifying potential partners and individual facilities, and when possible multiple
facilities, in industrial, manufacturing, federal facilities, and municipal, and other sectors
which are responsible for the highest volume of chemicals and/or highest risk if released
to the environment. Source reduction is the preferred means of chemical reduction, but
recycling is an acceptable alternative when viable source reduction options have been
eliminated. Contributions toward the GPRA goal can be achieved by recruiting several
small generators as well as by targeting large volume generators.
Regional and state recruiters who enroll partners in NPEP will contribute to the national
chemical goal.
The projected FY 2011 national goal is to reduce priority chemicals by 750,000 pounds.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 47
-------
This may be adjusted, depending on FY 2010 partner commitments. Based on targeting
information provided by ORCR, and other available information, Regions will establish
specific annual regional reduction goals, identifying the number of pounds of reductions
each Region will seek to achieve each year to reach the 2014 Priority Chemical GPRA
goal. Regional annual priority chemical reduction targets will be entered into the ACS.
In addition, the RCRA program has committed to targeted cost efficiencies associated
with reducing priority chemicals through its OMB efficiency measure, in which:
Efficiency is measured by the pounds of priority chemicals reduced from the environment
per Federal Government dollar spent. Federal spending consists of program
implementation costs including, FTE and contract spending.
The program continues its commitment to achieve 0.442 pounds of priority chemicals
removed per dollar spent.
For further information, please see the following websites:
http ://www. epa.gov/npep
http://www.epa.gov/rcc/action-plan/act-p3.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/npep/index.htm
Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3)
The Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3), which is part of the RCC, strives to
facilitate: (1) removal of legacy accumulations of dangerous chemicals from K-12
schools; (2) implementation of strong, sustainable chemical management in schools to
prevent chemical accidents in the future; and, (3) understanding and awareness of the
problem.
In FY 2009, EPA made progress on building a national campaign that includes a
public/private partner network to make responsible chemical management available to all
schools across the nation. These partnerships will help us to create sustainable chemical
management programs in schools that ultimately decrease the number of injuries and
school days lost due to poor chemical management and chemical spills, which is likely to
improve the learning environment in K-12 schools across the nation. While building
these partnerships in FY 2011, EPA and its federal partners will place their effort on the
following goals and objectives:
Gathering data and raising national awareness of the potential dangers of
chemical accumulations in K-12 schools.
Facilitate Chemical Cleanout and prevention of future chemical management
problems: improve access to information resources (tools, manuals, and criteria)
and provide technical assistance; institutionalize good chemical management
practices, including training (in particular, training for pre-service teachers),
purchasing, and planning; and recognize successes through SC3 awards.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 48
-------
In FY 2011, EPA headquarters and the Regions will analyze data collected from the ICR,
grow the partner network, and develop tools to educate pre-service teachers, schools and
industry partners about the issues surrounding chemical management.
To bring this information, expertise, and resources to as many school districts as possible
across the country, EPA headquarters and Regions will focus their efforts on developing
and strengthening partnerships to build this national network. Regions will be the key to
making this vision a reality. As we sign on partners who want to help schools, it will be
the regional knowledge of the local landscape that will help match partners with school
districts lending their expertise to grow the campaign and ensure that it complements and
embraces other Agency Healthy School Environments Initiatives. Regions will also take
the lead in identifying and targeting local industries that have the ability to assist with the
Campaign and schools that are in need of assistance. Success in FY 2011 will be
measured by the number of partnership agreements established, schools affected, students
and school staff protected, and sustainable practices established.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 49
-------
Underground Storage Tanks Program
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum Products Properly (VST)
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land (LUST)
Administrator priorities supported by this national program include:
Cleaning Up Our Communities
Protecting America's Waters
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice
Program Overview
The purpose of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program is to protect communities
living and working near UST sites as well as land and groundwater resources from
contamination caused by releases of regulated substances (typically petroleum-based
motor fuels and their additives) from leaking USTs.14 The program is designed to
implement a dual approach for achievement of this goal: the first is to prevent and detect
releases from UST systems, and the second is to clean up contamination from releases
that occur from leaking USTs (sometimes referred to as "LUSTs"). Both of these
program elements are part regulatory and part formula grant, and they work in concert
with one another as an integrated whole. The Office of Underground Storage Tanks
(OUST) was created in 1985 as the result of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976.
The HSWA added Subtitle I, which directs EPA to develop a comprehensive program for
the regulation of UST systems "as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment."
The Underground Storage Tanks program provides states15 and tribes with financial and
technical assistance and assists with capacity building through training and state program
approval. Only for the relatively few USTs on Indian country does EPA directly
implement the program. Supported by grants and cooperative agreements, state agencies
implement the program for the vast majority of USTs. Except for a small core of
headquarters personnel, federal UST program personnel are geographically dispersed to
EPA's 10 regional offices and it is regional personnel who both directly implement and
enforce the program at the local level (on tribal lands) and also provide technical,
logistical, and administrative support to the state programs in their region.
14 Thirty-nine states identify leaking underground storage tanks as one of the top 10 sources of groundwater
contamination. (EPA Office of Water 305(b) report, Figure 6-5,
http://www.epa.sov/owow/305b/2000reporf)
15 The term "states" as used in this guidance refers collectively to UST programs implemented by the
individual states, territories, and the District of Columbia, see the definition of "State" in the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976 (42 U.S.CA. 6903 at http://uscode.house.sov/search/criteria.shtml}.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 50
-------
Regulatory Framework
Regulations promulgated by EPA in 1988 establish the regulatory framework for
achieving the program's goal. Regulations at 40 CFR Part 280, "Technical Standards and
Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage
Tanks", include both technical standards and financial requirements for owners and
operators of UST systems and are broken down into eight subparts:
1. Program Scope and Interim Prohibition (Subpart A);
2. UST Systems: Design, Construction, Installation, and Notification (Subpart B);
3. General Operating Requirements (Subpart C);
4. Release Detection (Subpart D);
5. Release Reporting, Investigation, and Confirmation (Subpart E);
6. Release Response and Corrective Action for UST Systems Containing Petroleum
or Hazardous Substances (Subpart F);
7. Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure (Subpart G); and
8. Financial Responsibility (Subpart H).
State programs that have regulations that are no less stringent than federal regulations can
be approved to operate in lieu of the federal program. The procedures for approving such
state programs are found at 40 CFR Part 281: "Approval of State Underground Storage
Tank Programs". These regulations are broken down into six subparts:
1. Purpose, General Requirements and Scope (Subpart A);
2. Components of a Program Application (Subpart B);
3. Criteria for No Less Stringent (Subpart C);
4. Adequate Enforcement of Compliance (Subpart D);
5. Approval Procedures (Subpart E);
6. Withdrawal of Approval of State Programs (Subpart F).
Thirty-six states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have received approval for
their UST programs. The remaining 14 states and 4 territories implement UST programs
under their own authorities in cooperation with EPA.
Program Funding
EPA provides funds to help states implement their programs through grants or
cooperative agreements under the authorities and appropriations described below.
Specific activities eligible for funding are determined through discussions between the
states and tribes and the EPA regional offices based on national guidance issued by
OUST.
In FY 1999, through PL 105-276, Congress gave EPA authority to provide assistance
agreements to federally-recognized tribes to develop and administer UST prevention
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 51
-------
programs and leaking UST cleanup programs. In general, such assistance agreements can
be used for the same purposes for tribes as they are used for states, however, EPA does
not have authority under RCRA to approve tribal programs to operate in lieu of the
federal program. Examples of eligible projects that can be conducted under these grants
include the development and administration of an UST or leaking UST program,
conducting an unregistered tank survey, providing leak detection and installer training,
and cleaning up releases.
In 2004, through PL 107-73, Congress gave EPA authority to award cooperative
agreements to federally-recognized tribes and eligible tribal consortia to assist EPA in
implementing federal environmental programs in the absence of an approved tribal
program. These agreements are called Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreements (DITCA's) and they provide tribes with the flexibility and opportunity to
hire and train environmental staff to effectively manage UST programs, promote
compliance, and address specific tribal needs and priorities within EPA's authority for
direct implementation.
UST State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Any STAG funding appropriated in
FY 2011 for the UST leak prevention programs will be given as grants under the
authorities of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976, as amended by the
Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 2007(f), 42 U.S.C.
6916(f)(2), and Section 9011; and such additional authority as may be provided for in
EPA's annual appropriations acts. STAG funding is provided in grants and cooperative
agreements to assist states and territories in the development and implementation of UST
programs and for leak prevention, compliance and other activities authorized by the
EPAct and EPA's annual appropriations acts.
The UST State Grant program is implemented by regulations at 40 CFR 35.330. There is
a 25-percent matching requirement for states under 40 CFR 35.335. State matches may
include in-kind contributions.
LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements for UST Release Prevention Activities
Any LUST funding appropriated in FY 2011 for the prevention program will be given as
assistance agreements under the authorities of Section 9011 and other applicable
provisions of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1976. This funding
will be used in assistance agreements to the states and tribes to carry out the EPAct
provisions related to the prevention of UST releases. The assistance agreements will be
for prevention and compliance assurance activities, such as inspections, as well as for
enforcement activities related to release prevention. Priority will be given to providing
funds to enable the states to meet their responsibilities under Title XV, Subtitle B of the
EPAct. States that have entered into assistance agreements with EPA have the authority
to inspect and take other compliance and related enforcement actions to prevent releases
from USTs. EPA provides financial assistance to tribes to develop and implement
programs to manage USTs. This financial assistance program is not eligible for inclusion
in Performance Partnership Grants under 40 CFR 35.133. Assistance agreements are only
available to states that have UST programs. Additionally, these assistance agreements are
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 52
-------
only available to federally-recognized tribes and Intertribal Consortia that must meet the
requirements, as described in the Federal Register Notice, Vol. 67, No. 213, pp. 67181-
67183, "Update to EPA Policy on Certain Grants to Intertribal Consortia."
LUST prevention funding is awarded under an allocation process developed by the
Agency. The Agency distributes funds based on the number of federally-regulated USTs
in a state and other indices of state needs. States will provide a twenty-five (25) percent
match for cooperative agreements awarded under Section 9011 and other applicable
provisions of Subtitle I. There is no matching requirement for LUST prevention
assistance agreements for tribes or Intertribal Consortia awarded pursuant to annual
appropriation acts.
LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements for Corrective Action Activities Any
LUST funding appropriated in FY 2010 for the LUST cleanup program will be given as
cooperative agreements under the authorities of Section 9003 (h)(7) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1976 (SWDA), as amended, and Public Law 105-276. Under Public Law
105-276, Congress authorized EPA to use LUST Trust Fund appropriations to award
cooperative agreements to tribes for the same purposes as those set forth in Section
9003(h)(7). Policies and procedures applicable to EPA-State LUST Trust Fund
cooperative agreements are presented in detail in OSWER Directive 9650.10A, issued
May 24, 1994. LUST corrective action funding awarded under Section 9003(h)(7) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act is subject to an allocation process developed by the Agency.
By guidance, the Agency has established a process for allocating funds to states under
Section 9003(h)(7) based on the cumulative numbers of confirmed UST releases,
cleanups initiated, cleanups completed, the percentage of the population using
groundwater for drinking water, and the number of states with approved UST programs.
This program allocates funding to tribes and Intertribal Consortia non-competitively
based on their programmatic needs and national guidance. States must provide a 10-
percent cost share for cooperative agreements awarded under Section 9003(h)(7). There
is no matching requirement for corrective action cooperative agreements for tribes or
Intertribal Consortia awarded pursuant to Public Law 105-276.
The LUST cleanup program received additional funding from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Additional details can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/recovery/ and http://www.recovery.gov/. EPA and states will
continue to implement the dual goals of the ARRA LUST funding: stimulate the
economy and assess/remediate LUST sites.
Headquarters and Regional Underground Storage Tanks Program Funds from
OUST's Environmental Program and Management (EPM) and the LUST Trust Fund
national program accounts support activities, subject to funding availability, that
promote the prevention, identification, corrective action, enforcement and management of
releases from underground storage tank systems.
EPA's Regulatory Responsibilities for Monitoring Performance Under Assistance
Agreements As a provider of federal funds to state UST programs, EPA has a
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 53
-------
responsibility under 40 CFR Part 31 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) and Part 35 (State and
Local Assistance) to monitor state performance and require performance reporting under
the funding sources listed above for each of the elements of 40 CFR 280 and 281 to
ensure accurate and complete information on program performance and financial
management.
Regions are also responsible for negotiating the terms and amounts of the assistance
agreements listed below and also for monitoring performance and requiring performance
reporting under these agreements:
1) STAG Appropriation to States and Territories: Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of
1976, as amended; Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986, Subtitle I, Section
2007(f)
2) LUST Appropriation to States, Territories and for Tribes:
a) Corrective Action: Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976 (SWDA), as amended,
Section 9003(h), Public Law 105-276, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009.
b) Prevention: Section 9011 and other applicable provisions of Subtitle I of the
SWDA as amended for States and Territories Energy Policy Act of 2005; 42 U.S.C.
6916(f)(2); EPAct, Title XV, Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B, Sections 1521 - 1533,
Public Law 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801; Public Law 105-276.
3) EPM and LUST Appropriations: Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976, Section 8001 (a)
and (b) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-
616); P.L. 105-276
Performance Indicators
To monitor performance of the program in meeting its twin objectives (prevention and
detection of releases, and cleaning up contamination from releases that do occur) OUST
has established two primary performance objectives.
The first objective, prevention and detection of releases, has two measures: (1) significant
operational compliance (SOC) and (2) number of confirmed releases.
(1) SOC. This measures the number of tanks that comply with both the release
prevention and release detection requirements, and that the tanks are operating and the
systems are properly maintained. The implementation of EPA's traditional tools,
supplemented by the new tools provided to the program through the EPAct, will over
time work with state authorities to show a marked increase in the SOC rates across the
country. These new tools include: conducting inspections of all active tanks every
three years, prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks, and requiring either secondary
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 54
-------
containment for new tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and
installers.
(2) Number of confirmed releases. A primary goal of the UST program is to reduce
the number of releases that occur annually to less than 9,000. It is critical that every
release that occurs (whether the total is greater than or less than 9,000) be discovered,
reported as expeditiously as possible, and appropriately addressed because costs for
cleanup are sharply reduced the earlier a release is discovered. Inspections and
compliance certifications can create incentives for owners and operators to properly
operate and maintain their systems because well-maintained systems experience fewer
leaks. With groundwater being the primary source of drinking water to nearly half of
the country's population, leaks from USTs are a significant threat to human health and
the environment. By decreasing the numbers of new releases, and continuing our focus
on the cleanup program as described below, the underground storage tank program
will make an important contribution to the nation's health.
Release Prevention and Detection Performance Goals for FY 2011:
Increase the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational
compliance with both release detection and release prevention requirements
by 0.5% over the previous year's target, (target: 66%)
Minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer
each year.
The second objective, cleaning up contamination from releases that do occur, has a single
performance goal, which is increasing the number of cleanups that meet risk-based
standards for human exposure and groundwater migration.
Over the history of the program, there have been approximately 488,000 confirmed
releases. The EPA, states, and tribes have worked together to clean up over 388,000 of
these, leaving a backlog of approximately 100,000 remaining to be completed.16
Because there are thousands of new releases added to this backlog every year,
reducing the backlog remains a challenge for the program.
EPA has efforts underway to continue to reach out to new partners and find new
information and new tools to enhance the ability to address these cleanups. For
example, EPA is working to better understand the nature of the cleanups remaining to
be completed in the backlog. If EPA can better characterize these remaining cleanups,
EPA plans to design targeted strategies that will increase the pace of addressing those
sites. EPA is also working to monitor the financial mechanisms being used by states
and private parties to finance cleanups, in order to assure there is, and will continue to
be, sufficient funding available. EPA also is working to build on the success of the
traditional Brownfields program by looking for opportunities to promote the cleanup
and redevelopment of abandoned gas stations (more generally known as "Petroleum
16
For the most current corrective action measures, see http://www.epa.sov/swerustl/cat/camarchv.htm
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 55
-------
Brownfields"). Another important resource EPA provides to states and tribes is
continuing research into the specific contaminants at leaking UST cleanup sites, the
risk associated with them, and appropriate cleanup tools to address them.
LUST Clean Up Performance Goal for FY2011:
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration, (target: 12,250; this includes 30
cleanups in Indian country).
Underground Storage Tank Programs in Indian Country
EPA is responsible for directly implementing the UST program in Indian country. As part
of this obligation, the Agency assists tribes in developing their capacity to administer
UST programs and works to ensure that UST facilities in Indian country operate in
compliance with regulations in order to prevent future leaks and to clean up existing
leaks. Federal funding is provided to support prevention and remediation activities such
as training for tribal environmental staff, education for owners and operators in Indian
country about UST requirements, site assessments, cleaning up releases, and Indian
country UST data collection and improvement efforts.
EPA's forward-looking strategy for the implementation of the UST program in Indian
country was developed with the close collaboration of tribes and lays out priorities and
objectives for the Agency to improve the UST tribal program. In particular, the strategy
identifies steps that EPA and tribes are taking to further the cleanup and compliance of
USTs. EPA continues to work with tribes toward meeting the objectives of the strategy
which include strengthening relationships, communication, and collaboration; improving
information sharing; implementing the provisions of the EPAct; and implementing UST
prevention and leaking UST cleanup activities.
EPA continues to work with its tribal partners to meet or exceed established goals to
improve UST compliance and release cleanup in Indian country along with meeting the
objectives laid out in the tribal strategy. EPA is also working with the tribes to meet the
EPAct requirement of conducting on-site inspections of all tanks in Indian country once
every three years.
Cleanup Performance Goal for FY 2011 in Indian country:
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration in Indian Country (target: 30).
Program Priorities and Initiatives
Community Engagement. OUST will work to enhance community engagement in UST
program decision making. By partnering with our state and tribal partners, we can
improve access to information and more effectively communicate site risks. Enhancing
community engagement will ensure local communities have a voice in programmatic
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 56
-------
actions, including redevelopment options. OUST's work will support OSWER's
Community Engagement Initiative.
ARRA. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $200 million
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to EPA for cleaning up
leaks from underground storage tanks. This funding will pay for activities at shovel-
ready sites to assess and clean up underground storage tank petroleum leaks. OUST,
regions, and states will continue to expend these funds to meet the dual goals of
stimulating economic growth and assessing/remediating UST releases. The UST
program places a high priority on close collaboration with tribes and will continue to
work with them to implement the UST program in Indian country and to build tribal
capacity in the program.
Preventing Underground Storage Tank Releases. EPA recognizes that compliance
with UST regulations offers the best prospect for preventing releases and detecting
releases as early as possible. In partnership with its state and tribal partners, EPA is
committed to fully implementing the Energy Policy Act UST provisions, including more
frequent inspection, requiring secondary containment for new installations, properly
training operators, and prohibiting delivery to severely noncompliant UST. Other
program priorities include successfully adapting to new fuels such as mid-level ethanol
blends, amending existing regulations to make targeted improvements to existing
requirements, and providing continued technical guidance and assistance to co-regulators
and the regulated community.
Cleaning Up Underground Storage Tank Releases. EPA provides financial,
regulatory, and technical assistance to states directly implementing their leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup programs. EPA and its Regions have
prioritized its work with states to characterize the inventory of open releases, known as
the backlog, evaluate this universe and develop strategies to accelerate the pace of
cleanups. The Agency is pursuing related technical support to consider newly identified
or challenging contaminants and pathways that affect human health and the environment.
In addition, the Agency is increasing its efforts to ensure adequate financial responsibility
for LUST cleanups, and, finally, EPA continues to promote revitalization of sites
contaminated with petroleum (i.e., petroleum brownfields).
Performance Monitoring and Reporting
Regional Coordination Regional planning meetings, regional Division Directors'
meetings, and regularly scheduled monthly conference calls between OUST and the
regional UST/leaking UST program managers provide opportunities for OUST and
regional management to assess the strengths and weaknesses of federal and state
programs and decide where EPA's support is most needed and would be most productive.
OUST holds additional Regional Program Manager meetings, as needed.
Regional offices are expected to verify the accuracy and completeness of data provided
by states. In order to avoid last minute reviews, verification must be an ongoing process
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 57
-------
each time states submit data to the regional offices. Regional offices must either develop
their own verification processes or follow verification guidance provided by OUST; in
general, such processes should involve sufficient interaction with states that the regional
offices can be confident that the data submitted at the end of each reporting period are
complete, up-to-date, and accurate.17 Each regional office should conduct reviews of state
data. In addition, regional offices are held accountable for working with states to improve
their data systems where appropriate.
Evaluating Program Performance Key objectives of OUST's program measurement
and evaluation include: (1) continuing to provide analytical reports that track national and
regional program performance; (2) improving data quality; (3) examining viability and
identifying ways to improve underground storage tank financial assurance mechanisms,
including state cleanup funds; (4) conducting evaluations of specific state cleanup
workloads to determine strategies for expediting and improving state cleanup programs;
(5) developing methods to explicitly highlight the environmental and public health
outcomes and benefits of completing leaking UST cleanups; (6) considering various
options for performance measure efficiency and accounting for the impacts of the EPAct
and (7) continued participation in advancing OSWER's Petroleum Brownfields and
Revitalization work as well as other cross-media and cross task forces, such as long-term
stewardship and identifying USTs and leaking USTs in source water areas.
State Reporting Requirements and Schedule States are required to submit
performance information on a semi-annual basis. States must report mid-year
performance data on or before April 5 of each year. Regional offices must report to
OUST the states' mid-year performance data on or before April 10 of each year.
States must report to the regional offices estimated end-of-year performance data on or
before September 7 of each year. Regional offices must report to OUST the estimated
end-of-year performance data by September 14 of each year. States must report final end-
of-year performance data on or before October 8 of each year. Regional offices must
report to OUST final regional offices end-of-year performance data on or before October
15.
For American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, each state and region (for the tribes) must
report the eight program performance measures reflecting cumulative totals within 10
days after the end of each calendar quarter into the LUST4 Performance Measures
database, accessed through the EPA Portal.
Specific directions for this data reporting will be provided to Regions via instructions
from the OUST Office Director.
17 Reporting elements are specified in an annual memorandum from OUST's Office Director to Regional
Division Directors, Regional Program Managers, and State program contacts.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 58
-------
Deliverable Dates for State and Regional Programs
For Semi-annual Data
Date
April 5
April 10
September 7
September 14
October 1 - 7
October 15
States
Report mid-year numbers to
regional offices.
Report estimates for end-of-
year numbers to regional
offices.
Report final end-of-year
numbers to regional offices.
Regions
Report final mid-year
numbers to headquarters
Report estimates for end-of-
year numbers to
headquarters
Report final end-of-year
numbers to headquarters
Deliverable Dates for State and Regional Programs
For ARRA Quarterly Reporting
Date
1st Quarter
January 1-10
January 11-15
January 1 5 - 22
January 22 - 3 1
2nd Quarter
April 1-10
States
Report 1st
numbers in
LUST4
Report 1st
numbers in
LUST4
Regions
Report 1st numbers
in LUST4 for tribal
contracts work
AND complete
review and QA/QC
Checklist
Report 1st numbers
in LUST4 for tribal
contracts work
AND complete
review and QA/QC
Checklist
OUST
Verify Data
Verify Data
for initial
upload into
ACS by 15th
of month
Verify Data in
ACS or
ARRA
Dashboard
Verify Data
OCFO
Review/Final
ize Data
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 59
-------
Date
April 11-15
April 15-22
April 22-30
States
Regions
OUST
Verify Data
for initial
upload into
ACS by 15th
of month
Verify Data in
ACSorARRA
Dashboard
OCFO
Review/Final
ize Data
3rd Quarter
August 1-10
August 11-15
August 15-22
August 22 - 3 1
4th Quarter
October 1-10
October 1 1 -
15
Report 1st
numbers in
LUST4
Report 1st
numbers in
LUST4
Report 1st
numbers in
LUST4 for tribal
contracts work
AND complete
review and
QA/QC
Checklist
Report 1st
numbers in
LUST4 for tribal
contracts work
AND complete
review and
QA/QC
Checklist
Verify Data
Verify Data
for initial
upload into
ACS by 15th
of month
Verify Data in
ACS or
ARRA
Dashboard
Verify Data
Verify Data
for initial
upload into
ACS by 15th
of month
Review/Finalize
Data
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 60
-------
Date
October 15 -22
October 22 - 3 1
States
Regions
OUST
Verify Data in
ACS or
ARRA
Dashboard
OCFO
Review/Finalize
Data
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 61
-------
Tribal Program Development
OSWER is committed to protecting human health and the environment in Indian country
while supporting tribal self government, acting consistently with the federal trust
responsibility, and strengthening the government-to-government relationships between
tribes and the EPA. OSWER supports tribal governments through capacity building,
technical and financial assistance, research and outreach. OSWER will continue
implementing the OSWER Tribal Strategy, an EPA and Tribal Partnership to Preserve
and Restore Land in Indian Country, which describes in detail OSWER program
strategies, priority activities, and associated measures for tribes from 2009-2014. By
implementing this strategy, EPA will strengthen partnerships with tribes, improve tribal
participation in all OSWER-related programs, enable tribes to achieve better
environmental outcomes, and enhance environmental protection in Indian country.
While implementing these priorities, OSWER will use cross-program approaches to
integrate and leverage activities (e.g., remediation of petroleum releases), and anticipate
future needs as tribes develop more mature programs. In 2011, OSWER intends to focus
on the following key areas to help improve tribal program development and
performance:
Actions that enable tribes to implement sustainable waste management programs,
where tribes have built capacity and demonstrate program readiness.
Supporting tribal community engagement efforts across OSWER.
Tribal consultation processes to support government-to-government relationships
with tribes.
Tribal support through the OSWER cooperative agreement with the Institute for
Tribal Environmental Professionals.
New technologies and opportunities for tribal outreach.
Technical assistance on mining impacts on tribal lands.
Tribal and EPA roles under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Enhancing opportunities for tribes in "green" initiatives (e.g., RE-Powering
America, Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE), and the
Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC)).
Climate change impacts on Native American communitiesadaptations and
opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint in Indian country (e.g., land
management, waste management and energy and resource conservation
initiatives in Indian country).
Understanding and reducing risk in Indian country.
Level the playing field for regulatory requirements and program performance for
OSWER programs in Indian country.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 62
-------
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice (EJ) is a priority through all of OSWER's waste programs,
promoting healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all people. By integrating
EJ into all its programs, OSWER seeks to mobilize its resources to address the needs of
disproportionately burdened communities. OSWER has made a commitment to
integrate EJ into its day-to-day activities through biennial "EJ Action Plans," and to
monitor the results of the EJ program reviews, incorporating their lessons for program
improvement. We also are contributing to the Agency's effort to incorporate
consideration of EJ into its rulemaking functions by conducting a pilot project which
includes an expanded Environmental Justice Analysis of the Definition of Solid Waste
rule and utilizing the results of the analysis in decision-making for the rule. OSWER
supports the development of activities related to environmental justice that meet our
agency annual and long term goals and aligns its program commitments with EPA's
2009-2014 Strategic Plan, the Administrator's priorities, and regional priorities.
To facilitate the continued integration of EJ into its programs, OSWER will:
Affirm commitment to make improvements from the information attained from
the EJ program reviews;
Develop improved methods of information delivery and technical assistance to
communities underrepresented in EPA cleanup decisions at contaminated sites;
Overcome barriers to incorporating EJ in decision making; and
Consider approaches for incorporating EJ in setting priorities, allocating
resources, targeting activities, and measuring progress.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 63
-------
Community Action for a Renewed Environment
The Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) is a community-based,
multi-media collaborative program designed to help local communities address the
cumulative risk of toxics exposure. Through the CARE program, EPA program experts
work together to provide technical guidance to communities. This support helps them
build partnerships and use collaborative processes to select and implement actions to
improve community health and the environment.
CARE promotes cross-media collaboration across the Agency. We also coordinate with
a broad range of governments, organizations, and businesses to help communities find the
partners they will need to succeed. Furthermore, CARE makes best practices, lessons
learned and other tools accessible to other communities.
CARE helps communities choose from the range of EPA programs designed to address
community concerns and improve their effectiveness by working to integrate the
programs to better meet the needs of communities. These programs include Diesel
Retrofits, Brownfields, National Estuary Program, Design for Environment,
Environmental Justice Revitalization Projects, Tools for Schools and Regional
Geographic Initiatives. More program information is available at www.epa.gov/CARE .
The following are proposed principal activities to be undertaken by EPA regional offices:
Provide multi-media regional support needed to ensure the success of the
Regions' CARE cooperative agreements.
Identify experienced project officers/leaders for each of the CARE projects and
provide training and support to them, as needed.
Strengthen cross program regional teams organized to support CARE project
leaders and CARE community needs with dedicated technical and programmatic
support.
During CARE Level I projects, provide the technical support needed for
communities to identify and rank their risks and build long-term, viable
partnerships.
During CARE Level II projects, help communities' access EPA programs and
expertise to create and implement local solutions and measure and track their
results.
Encourage staff participation in training new project leaders and at sessions
during the national CARE workshop.
Ensure required reporting of progress and results through the Quarterly and End
of Year Reports and assist in other efforts to aggregate program results on a
national level.
Support work to capture best practices and lessons learned to help other
communities replicate these approaches.
Support CARE national teams that have been organized to manage the CARE
program and provide support to Regional Office teams and projects.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 64
-------
Synopsis of OSWER's Feedback Process
Upon receiving the draft 2011 guidances from the National Program Managers (NPMs),
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) will post them on its internet site and
notify its counterparts in the EPA Regional offices. OCFO also will notify the
Environmental Council of the States and EPA tribal planning contacts. The review
period lasts approximately one month.
OSWER program office contacts (listed at the end of the guidance's executive summary)
work closely with Regional program implementers and will relay any concerns to
OSWER's Office of Program Management (OPM). EPA's state and tribal co-
implementers and stakeholders may send their comments directly to OSWER's Assistant
Administrator or to OCFO management. Regional and stakeholder comments and
suggestions will be considered by OSWER for the final draft of the guidance to be
released in late-April.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 65
-------
OSWER NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER GUIDANCE
GRANTS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
FOR FY 2011
EPA believes that consistent and quantifiable reporting of state results is critical toward
achieving national goals and results. In concert with this belief, OMB's FY 2007 Budget
passback instructed EPA to "develop a standardized template for states to use in reporting results
achieved under grant agreements with EPA". In early FY 2008, a workgroup was created to
identify lessons learned in EPA's State Grant Template Measures (SGTM) approach and
provided recommendations for FY 2009 and beyond. The workgroup found that the SGTM
approach by itself is inadequate to fulfill the objectives of accurately characterizing, delineating,
and communicating results under state grants relative to EPA's mission. As a result, EPA and
ECOS are seeking alternative approaches to discuss with OMB on how best to achieve
accountability for state grant performance for FY 2012.
In FY 2011, EPA remains committed to strengthening our oversight and reporting of results from
state grants, not only linking state grant work plan commitments to EPA's strategic plan, but also
enhancing transparency and accountability. EPA and the States will continue working in FY
2011 to achieve this through two related efforts:
State Grant Workplans: The Agency's long-term goal is for EPA and the States to achieve
greater consistency in workplan formats. To achieve that goal, the Office of Grants and
Debarment (OGD) will convene a State/EPA workgroup of grant practitioners to develop a menu
of formats for EPA and States to use when negotiating workplans for the 14 identified
categorical grant programs. In developing these formats, the workgroup will build upon the
results of the FY 2009 State Grant Workplan Pilot.
The formats will be available for use beginning with the FY 2011 grants cycle. In consultation
with the practitioners workgroup, and recognizing that the formats will need to be phased in over
time, OGD will develop performance metrics to ensure that 100% of workplans under the 14
categorical grant programs use one of the approved formats by no later than the FY 2013 grants
cycle. If a particular State agency has difficulties under State law in adopting one of the
established formats, OGD will work with the affected Region and NPM to resolve the issue.
Please contact Howard Corcoran, OARM/OGD, at 202-564-1903 should you have any questions.
State Grant Performance Measures (formally known as State Grant Template Measures):
The current set of measures flagged as State Grant Template Measures in ACS will be retained
for FY 2011 reporting. As in FY 2010, the use of the template to capture results for these
measures is not required. However, reporting on the results remains the responsibility of the
Regions and States. The Agency and members of ECOS have had ongoing discussions as to
whether there is utility in identifying a set of common measures that reflect the primary
functional work areas under each of the 14 categorical grants. Issues that have been raised
include how the Agency would capture and use these measures. In FY 2011, the Agency, in
consultation with ECOS, will evaluate the workplan initiative discussed above and determine
whether it sufficiently enhances transparency and accountability such that developing a common
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 66
-------
set of measures is unnecessary. Please contact Margo Padgett, OCFO/OPAA, at 202-564-1211
should you have any questions.
OSWER places a high priority on accountability and effective grants management in the
solicitation, selection, award, and administration of assistance agreements in support of
OSWER's mission. The following key areas will be emphasized as we implement our grant
programs:
1. Standardizing the timing of issuance of grants guidance for categorical grants (i.e., by
April of the fiscal year prior to the year in which the guidance applies);
2. Ensuring effective management through emphasis on training and accountability
standards for Project Officers and their managers; and
3. Utilizing new state grant measures to link grants performance to the achievement of
environmental results as detailed in the Agency's Strategic Plan and the OSWER
National Program Manager Guidance.
The Office of Grants and Debarment (OGD), in its efforts to strengthen the management
and oversight of Agency assistance agreements, issued a "Grants Management Plan for 2009-
2013." The plan is designed to help ensure grant programs meet the highest management and
fiduciary standards and further the Agency's mission of protecting human health and the
environment. The plan highlights five grants management goals:
1. Demonstrate the achievement of environmental results;
2. Foster a high-quality grants management workforce;
3. Enhance the management process for grants policies and procedures;
4. Standardize and streamline the grants business process; and
5. Leverage technology to strengthen decision making and increase public awareness.
OSWER continues to promote these goals and to work closely with OGD.
Timing of Guidance Issued for Categorical Grants
One of OSWER's objectives is to organize and coordinate the issuance of draft and final
guidance documents, including grants guidance, to coincide as much as possible with State,
tribal, and regional planning processes. As a result, all guidance packages for categorical grant
programs are to be issued by April of the year in advance of the fiscal year of availability of
funds if at all possible (i.e., guidance for fiscal year 2008 appropriated funds needs to be issued
by April 2007). Not all categorical grant programs issue annual guidance. These programs may
simply indicate that they are continuing to use their current guidance.
Effective Grants Management
OSWER's Acquisition and Resources Management Staff (ARMS) serves as liaison to OGD and
the first resource for Project Officers and their managers in disseminating, implementing, and
ensuring compliance with EPA new and existing grants management policies and procedures.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 67
-------
ARMS also serves as the point of contact in consultations with our regional offices and Grant
Coordinators Workgroup.
ARMS' central coordinating role serves to ensure consistent implementation and compliance
with Agency grants management policies and procedures throughout OSWER Headquarters and
regional program offices. This enables OSWER project officers to focus on how best to properly
manage assistance agreements to meet program goals and objectives.
ARMS provides training, on an as-needed basis, and strongly encourages OSWER Grant
Coordinators, Project Officers, and their managers to participate in training which addresses the
core competency areas identified in the Agency's Long-Term Grants Management Training
Plan.
Promoting Competition
OSWER places great importance on assuring that, to the maximum extent possible, all
discretionary funding opportunities are awarded in a fair and open competitive environment and
that no applicant receives an unfair advantage. OSWER Project Officers must ensure that these
actions are fully compliant with EPA Order 5700.5 Al, Policy for Competition of Assistance
Agreements in the solicitation, selection, and award of assistance agreements.
The competition policy, effective January 15, 2005, applies to:
1. competitive announcements issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
2. assistance agreement competitions, awards, and disputes based on competitive
announcements issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
3. non-competitive awards resulting from non-competitive funding recommendations
submitted to a Grants Management Office after January 14, 2005; and
4. assistance agreement amendments issued after January 14, 2005.
For each competitive funding opportunity announcement, OSWER's Senior Resource Official
certifies that the expected outcomes from the awards are appropriate and in support of program
goals and, that the announcement is written in a manner to promote competition to the maximum
extent practicable.
In accordance with Agency policy, all OSWER competitive funding opportunity announcement
are advertised by posting to Grants.gov, the central federal electronic portal for applying for
grant opportunities.
Policy for Competition of Assistance Agreements in the solicitation, selection, and award of
assistance agreements.
The competition policy, effective January 15, 2005, applies to:
5. competitive announcements issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 68
-------
6. assistance agreement competitions, awards, and disputes based on competitive
announcements issued, released, or posted after January 14, 2005;
7. non-competitive awards resulting from non-competitive funding recommendations
submitted to a Grants Management Office after January 14, 2005; and
8. assistance agreement amendments issued after January 14, 2005.
For each competitive funding opportunity announcement, OSWER's Senior Resource Official
certifies that the expected outcomes from the awards are appropriate and in support of program
goals and, that the announcement is written in a manner to promote competition to the maximum
extent practicable.
In accordance with Agency policy, all OSWER competitive funding opportunity announcement
are advertised by posting to Grants.gov, the central federal electronic portal for applying for
grant opportunities.
Ensuring Effective Oversight of Assistance Agreements
Consistent with guidance from the Grants Administration Division, OSWER develops a Post-
Award Management Plan which presents our strategy for ensuring proper oversight and
management of assistance agreements, specifically, grants and cooperative agreements. The
plan, developed in accordance with EPA Order 5700.6 Al, "Policy on Compliance, Review and
Monitoring, " establishes baseline monitoring requirements for all OSWER grants and
cooperative agreements and defines the responsibilities of OSWER managers for post-award
monitoring of assistance agreements. The plan does not apply to OSWER regional grants or
cooperative agreements, nor does it include requirements for Interagency Acquisitions (IA).
Monitoring activities ensure satisfaction of five core areas:
1. Compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions;
2. Correlation of the recipient's work plan/application and actual progress under the award;
3. Availability of funds to complete the proj ect;
4. Proper management of and accounting for equipment purchased under the award; and
5. Compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements of the program.
Baseline monitoring activities are conducted by Project Officers on every assistance agreement
award issued through OSWER program offices. Project Officers are responsible for conducting
baseline monitoring on an ongoing basis throughout the life of each agreement. The objective is
to keep track of progress on the assistance agreement, ensuring that each recipient maintains
compliance with all terms and conditions of the award, including financial and programmatic
conditions.
Annually, OSWER conducts Advanced Monitoring Activities (including both on-site and off-site
evaluative reviews) on a minimum of 10 percent of our assistance agreement recipients. The
reviews are conducted using the "Desk and Off-site Review Protocol" and "On-Site Review
Protocol" guidance offered in EPA Order 5700.6 Al. Project Officers are required to submit
reports of the reviews, in the "Required Format for Writing a Programmatic Review Report for
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 69
-------
On-site and Off-site Evaluative Reviews," within 60 calendar days of completion of the
evaluation.
OSWER continually stresses the importance of Project Officer's timely submission of evaluative
reviews into the Grantee Compliance Database. Implementation of EPA Order 5700.8, "EPA
Policy on Assessing Capabilities of Non-Profit Applicants for Managing Assistance Awards, "
effective March 31, 2005, further highlights the necessity of timely submission. Under the
Order, Project Officers are required to assess the programmatic capability of the non-profit
applicant when the dollar amount of the federal share exceeds $200,000; taking into account
pertinent information from the Grantee Compliance Database and the grant application. Project
Officers are required to provide an assurance in the funding recommendation/funding package
that the applicant possesses, or will possess, the necessary programmatic capability.
All competitive grant announcements, under which non-profit organizations can compete, must
contain a programmatic capability ranking factor(s). Non-profit applicants and other applicants
that compete will be evaluated under this factor. Non-profit applicants selected for funding will
be subject to a review for administrative capability similar to that for non-competitive awards.
Project Officer Performance Standards
OSWER supports the requirement that all employees involved in grants management should
have their grants management responsibilities appropriately addressed in their performance
agreements. On January 5, 2007, OGD issued a memorandum entitled "Assessing 2007 Grants
Management Performance under the Performance Appraisal and Recognition System (PARS)."
The memorandum implements recommendations resulting from a cross-Agency Performance
Measures Workgroup that developed several performance measures for assessing the grants
management performance of project officers, supervisors and managers.
OSWER's Senior Resource Official has mandated the inclusion of factors that address grants
management responsibilities in the performance standards of our Project Officers. To assist in
this effort, OSWER has disseminated the guidance provided by OGD's January 5, 2007,
memorandum to all of our Project Officers, Managers, and Grant Coordinators. The guidance, as
applicable, has been used in 2008 mid-year and end-of-year performance reviews and in the
development of 2009 PARS agreements.
Environmental Results of Grants and Link to Strategic Plan
On January 1, 2005, EPA issued the Environmental Results Order (5700.7). Under the Order,
Program Offices are required to identify and link environmental results from proposed assistance
agreements to the Agency's Strategic Plan/GPRA architecture. Further, the Order requires that
the linkage to the Strategic Plan, as well as anticipated outputs and outcomes are identified and
addressed in assistance agreement competitive funding announcements, work plans, and
performance reports submitted to Grants Management Offices after January 1, 2005.
In compliance with the Environmental Results Order, OSWER requires that Project Officers
identify the linkage to the Agency Strategic Plan, including goals, objectives, and sub-objectives,
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 70
-------
and anticipated outcomes and outputs in all competitive funding announcements, prior to
obtaining AA certification. Additionally, OSWER has identified environmental results as a "key
topic" area in reviewing and approving funding packages for award, prior to submission to GAD.
Goals 3, 4 and 5 of EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan present specific OSWER objectives, sub-
objectives and strategic targets that define, in measurable terms, the change in public health or
environmental conditions to be accomplished by 2011. EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan is
available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm.
Draft FY 2011 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 71
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX
G/O/S
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.1
3.2.2
Measures
Central
Code
MW9
RCC1
HWO
ST1
ST6
TR1
TR2
132
133
327A
328A
C1
112
Measure Text
Pounds of municpal solid waste reduced, reused or recycled.
Number of major projects/efforts that support the implementation and/or development of programmatic components of the
natonal and regional RCC efforts to address Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) recycling, industrial materials (IM) recycling, toxics
reduction, or green initiatives.
Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls.
Minimize the number of confirmed releases at LIST facilities to 9,000 or fewer each year.
Increase the percentage of LIST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with both release detection and release
prevention requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target.
Number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan .
Number of closed, cleaned up or upgraded open dumps in Indian country or other tribal lands.
Number of Superfund-lead removal actions completed.
Number of PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA.
Percent of all FRP facilities found to be non-compliant which will be brought into compliance.
Percent of all SPCC facilities found to be non-compliant which will be brought into compliance.
Score on Core NAR evaluation.
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration.
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Nat.
Target
21 B
N/A
100
< 9,000
(LIST
releases)
66%
22
22
170
170
30%
30%
60%
12,250
Attachment I, page 1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX
G/O/S
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.3
Measures
Central
Code
113
121
131
141
151
152
CA1
CA2
CAS
S10
OSRE-01
Measure Text
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in
Indian Country.
Number of Superfund final site assessment decisions.
Number of remedial action projects completed at Superfund NPL sites.
Number of Superfund construction completions.
Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control.
Number of Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under control.
Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures under control.
Number of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control.
Number of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed.
Number of Superfund sites ready for anticipated use site-wide.
Each year through 201 1 , 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.
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Nat.
Target
30
325
103
25
10
15
131
114
124
65
95%
Attachment I, page 2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2011 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX
G/O/S
3.2.3
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.3
4.2
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3
5.2.1
Measures
Central
Code
OSRE-02
CH2
PC1
PC2
CARE-1
B29
B32
B33
B34
B37
B38
PBS
Measure Text
Each year through 201 1 , address all Statute of Limitations cases for Superfund sites with unaddressed total past costs equal
to or greater than $200,000.
Number of risk management plan audits and inspections completed.
Number of sites receiving 40 CFR 761.61(a) or (c) approvals.
Number of acres to be remediated under 40 CFR 761 .61 (a) or (c) approvals.
Number of Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE) cooperative agreement projects managed in order to obtain
toxic reductions at the local level.
Number of brownfields properties assessed.
Properties cleaned up using brownfields funding.
Acres of brownfields property made ready for reuse.
Jobs leveraged from brownfields activities.
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at brownfields sites.
Number of tribes supported by Brownfields cooperative agreements.
Number of pounds reduced (in millions) of priority chemicals as reported by National Partnership for Environmental Priorities
members.
Non-
Commit-
ment
Indicator
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Nat.
Target
100%
400
40
100
N/A
1,000
60
1,000
5,000
0.9
N/A
0.75
Attachment I, page 3
-------
Explanation of Changes between FY 2010 and FY 2011
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Change from FY 2010 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson highlighted
these priorities in her January 12, 2010,
memorandum to all EPA employees.
Sections and Affected Pages
Priorities
EPA's top priorities organized into seven
themes to focus the work of the agency. The
These themes are as follows: Taking Action
on Climate Change, Improving Air Quality,
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals, Cleaning
Up Our Communities, Protecting America's
Waters, Expanding the Conversation on
Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice and Building Strong
State and Tribal Partnerships.
Executive Summary; pages 1-
10.
EPA will have initiated 20 Brownfields
community-level projects as part of an
enhanced effort to benefit under-served and
economically disadvantaged communities by
2012.
Increased focus on existing high performing
Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund recipients
giving greater priority to those that have
"shovel ready" projects in or around "cities in
transition."
One of EPA's High Priority Performance
Goals. These are goals identified
throughout the federal government
supporting the President's agenda for
building a high performing government.
Agency priority. The President's FY 2011
budget request includes an increase of $38.3
million to support this priority.
Executive Summary; page 9.
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities; page
25.
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities; pages
24 and 28.
Strategies
In an effort to improve the accountability,
transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's
cleanup programs, EPA initiated its
"Integrated Cleanup Initiative," a multiyear
effort in 2010 to better use assessment and
cleanup authorities to address a greater
By bringing to bear the relevant tools
available in each of the cleanup programs
(Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities and
Brownfields), EPA will better leverage the
resources available to address needs at
individual sites. Further, the effort will
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities, pages
16-17.
Draft - Attachment II, page 1
-------
number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put
those sites back into productive use while
protecting human health and the environment.
EPA's Superfund program 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.
EPA's cleanup programs will enhance and
efforts to engage communities in cleanup
decisions.
examine all aspects of the cleanup program,
in a more granular fashion, identifying key
process improvements, enhanced
efficiencies, and associated performance
measures to clearly gauge and demonstrate
progress from site assessment through site-
wide construction completion.
To support the Agency's "Healthy
Communities" initiative in urban areas,
particularly underserved communities.
To implement OSWER's Enhanced
Community Engagement Initiative.
Executive Summary; page 9.
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities; page
12.
Executive Summary; page 5.
Annual
Commitment
Measures
New measure, "Number of remedial action
projects completed at Superfund NPL sites."
As part of OSWER's Integrated Cleanup
Initiative, this measure will provide
additional data to more clearly gauge and
demonstrate progress cleaning up Superfund
NPL sites.
Measures Appendix; page 2.
Not applicable.
Tracking
Process
Contacts
Brendan Roache, (703) 603-8704
Adam Klinger (703) 603-7167
Amy Vandenburg (703) 603-9028
New Federal Facilities contact
New Underground Storage Tanks contact
New Superfund Remedial contact
Executive Summary; page 9.
Draft - Attachment II, page 2
-------
Explanation of Changes between FY 2010 and FY 2011
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Change from FY 2010 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson highlighted
these priorities in her January 12, 2010,
memorandum to all EPA employees.
Sections and Affected Pages
Priorities
EPA's top priorities organized into seven
themes to focus the work of the agency. The
These themes are as follows: Taking Action
on Climate Change, Improving Air Quality,
Assuring the Safety of Chemicals, Cleaning
Up Our Communities, Protecting America's
Waters, Expanding the Conversation on
Environmentalism and Working for
Environmental Justice and Building Strong
State and Tribal Partnerships.
Executive Summary; pages 1-
10.
EPA will have initiated 20 Brownfields
community-level projects as part of an
enhanced effort to benefit under-served and
economically disadvantaged communities by
2012.
Increased focus on existing high performing
Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund recipients
giving greater priority to those that have
"shovel ready" projects in or around "cities in
transition."
One of EPA's High Priority Performance
Goals. These are goals identified
throughout the federal government
supporting the President's agenda for
building a high performing government.
Agency priority. The President's FY 2011
budget request includes an increase of $38.3
million to support this priority.
Executive Summary; page 9.
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities; page
25.
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities; pages
24 and 28.
Strategies
In an effort to improve the accountability,
transparency, and effectiveness of EPA's
cleanup programs, EPA initiated its
"Integrated Cleanup Initiative," a multiyear
effort in 2010 to better use assessment and
cleanup authorities to address a greater
By bringing to bear the relevant tools
available in each of the cleanup programs
(Remedial, Removal, Federal Facilities and
Brownfields), EPA will better leverage the
resources available to address needs at
individual sites. Further, the effort will
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities, pages
16-17.
Draft - Attachment II, page 1
-------
number of sites, accelerate cleanups, and put
those sites back into productive use while
protecting human health and the environment.
EPA's Superfund program 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.
EPA's cleanup programs will enhance and
efforts to engage communities in cleanup
decisions.
examine all aspects of the cleanup program,
in a more granular fashion, identifying key
process improvements, enhanced
efficiencies, and associated performance
measures to clearly gauge and demonstrate
progress from site assessment through site-
wide construction completion.
To support the Agency's "Healthy
Communities" initiative in urban areas,
particularly underserved communities.
To implement OSWER's Enhanced
Community Engagement Initiative.
Executive Summary; page 9.
Key National Program
Strategies and Priorities; page
12.
Executive Summary; page 5.
Annual
Commitment
Measures
New measure, "Number of remedial action
projects completed at Superfund NPL sites."
As part of OSWER's Integrated Cleanup
Initiative, this measure will provide
additional data to more clearly gauge and
demonstrate progress cleaning up Superfund
NPL sites.
Measures Appendix; page 2.
Not applicable.
Tracking
Process
Contacts
Brendan Roache, (703) 603-8704
Adam Klinger (703) 603-7167
Amy Vandenburg (703) 603-9028
New Federal Facilities contact
New Underground Storage Tanks contact
New Superfund Remedial contact
Executive Summary; page 9.
Draft - Attachment II, page 2
------- |