U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
FY 2010 National Program Manager's
Guidance
April 2009
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1 - 9
Key National Program Strategies and Priorities
Superfund Remediation and Federal Facilities 10 - 14
Emergency Response and Prevention 15-20
Brownfields and Land Revitalization 21-24
RCRA Waste Management 25 - 34
Underground Storage Tanks 35-45
Synopsis of OS WER' s Feedback Process 46
State Grant Work Plan Instructions 47 - 51
Attachments
F Y 2010 Measures Appendix I
F Y 2010 State Grant Measures Appendix II
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Measures HI
Comments and Response to Comments Summary IV
-------
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
Resources 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's) Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (OSRE) and Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO), also are
represented in this guidance. Basic approaches remain the same from last year.
II. Introduction/Context
The OSWER guidance defines national policy, strategic goals and priority activities
consistent with OSWER's Action Plan1, as well as Superfund enforcement goals managed
by OECA. This guidance, prepared to implement priorities described in EPA 's 2009-
2014 Strategic Plan2 and in EPA 's FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and
CongressionalJustification3, should be used to assist in National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) discussions.
III. Program Priorities
The following objectives characterize EPA's land program activities: Revitalization;
Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery; Emergency Preparedness,
Response and Homeland Security; Implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct); and Clean Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction.
Revitalization: All of EPA's cleanup programs (Superfund Remedial, Superfund
Removal, Superfund Federal Facilities Response, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (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, and maintaining or improving health and the quality of life.
1 OSWER's Action Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/actionplan/index.htm
2The 2009-20014 EPA 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.
3 Placeholder for link to FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 1
-------
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
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
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. EPA will improve its
capability to effectively prepare for and respond to these incidents. EPA will also
continue to work 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.
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.
Clean Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction: EPA is looking for opportunities
to reduce or avoid GHG emissions through improved materials and land
management practices. These include the promotion of materials management
practices through the RCC and land management practices such as green
remediation and the siting of renewable energy on contaminated lands.
IV. Regional Priorities
In late 2005, the Deputy Administrator asked the Regions to identify a limited number of
regional and state priorities. These priorities were based upon dividing the nation into
geographic groups and establishing performance measures to support the priorities. The
geographic areas include the Northeast, Midwest, Great South, Great American West,
Tribes, U.S.-Mexico Border and Islands.
Many of the performance measures developed by these regional groups support OSWER
national program priorities. The selected regional priorities that align with or support
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 2
-------
OSWER's national goals include Superfund and Brownfields site assessments; Superfund
construction completions; Brownfields acres made ready for reuse; emergency
preparedness training and exercises; and tribal efforts to increase the number of tribes
covered by integrated waste management plans, to close, cleanup, or upgrade open
dumps, and to assess, clean up, and redevelop Brownfields properties.
The U.S.-Mexico border priority concerning removal and disposal of scrap tires supports
OSWER's waste management priorities. Under the Midwest's Lead Poisoning priority,
residential properties are being restored using Superfund authorities. These actions
support Superfund priorities.
V. Tribal Program Development
OSWER supports tribal governments through capacity building, technical assistance,
research and outreach. OSWER's tribal program is focused on implementing the
OSWER Tribal Strategy, an EPA and Tribal Partnership to Preserve and Restore Land
in Indian Country, which describes in detail each of OSWER's program strategies,
priority activities, and associated measures for tribes; and provides cross-program
strategies, direction, and national initiatives for OSWER's tribal program from 2009-
2014. Through implementation of the OSWER Tribal Strategy, EPA will strengthen
partnerships with tribes, improve tribal participation in OSWER-related programs,
improve tribal data quality and accessibility, and enhance environmental protection in
Indian country.
As part of the efforts to implement the OSWER Tribal Strategy, OSWER will 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.
Climate change impacts on Native American communities 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).
Reporting tribal-specific OSWER cross-program measures,
EPA's role/approach to risk assessment and risk reduction in Indian country.
New technologies for tribal outreach.
Tribal support through the OSWER cooperative agreement with the Institute for
Tribal Environmental Professionals.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page :
-------
VI. Environmental Justice and CARE
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
perform EJ program reviews, incorporating their lessons for program improvement.
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:
Identify measurable results from its program offices;
Affirm commitment to conduct EJ program reviews;
Overcome barriers to incorporating EJ in decision making; and
Consider approaches for incorporating EJ in setting priorities, allocating
resources, targeting activities, and measuring progress.
EPA's Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program supports the
Agency's priorities for protecting children and upholding citizens' rights to be
knowledgeable about the health of their environment. CARE is a community-based,
multimedia collaborative Agency program designed to help local communities address
the cumulative risk of toxics exposure. EPA program offices work together to provide
technical support and funding to communities to help them build partnerships and use
collaborative problem solving processes to select and implement actions to improve
community health and the environment. Information about CARE can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/care/.
Beginning in FY 2010, EPA will implement a performance measure to report the number
of CARE projects supported by EPA regional offices. The following principle activities
should be undertaken by the Regions to support the CARE program:
Provide regional support needed to ensure the success of the region's CARE
cooperative agreements.
Consider and implement CARE regional best practices as appropriate. (Regional
best practices for support of CARE communities developed by the CARE
Program and CARE Executive Team).
Identify experienced project officers/leaders for each of the CARE projects and
provide training and support, as needed.
Strengthen multi-media and cross program regional team organized to support
CARE project leaders and CARE community needs.
Work with CARE Level I projects, through the project officers, to help provide
the technical support needed for communities to identify and rank their risks.
Work with CARE Level II projects, through the project officers, to help
communities' access EPA voluntary programs and measure and track results.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 4
-------
Ensure staff participation in training for new project leaders and national CARE
workshop.
Participate in the evaluation of the CARE projects and support work to develop
best practices and lessons learned to improve CARE program.
Support CARE national teams that have been organized to manage the CARE
program and provide support to regional teams.
VII. Implementation Strategies
The Superfund Remedial program will focus on cleaning up contaminated National
Priorities List (NPL) sites and making them available for beneficial reuse. These goals
will be achieved by assessing the worst sites first, ensuring that human exposure to toxic
chemicals and migration of contaminated groundwater are under control, selecting
remedies that optimize reuse and revitalization, 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
hazardous waste 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 achieving site
construction completions and promoting reuse at Federal facilities listed on the NPL and
specific Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) bases. Work at these 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 try to resolve outstanding site-specific disputes as well as
obtain statutorily mandated Interagency Agreements (IAGs)/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
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 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) and analyze RMP data to
understand trends in and causes of chemical accidents. RMP data also will be utilized to
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 5
-------
conduct outreach to improve chemical safety.
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 implement the Brownfields and Land
Revitalization program; 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 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 will continue its efforts to meet the
commitments made as part of the Special Regional Priority for the Mexico Border area.
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. The program also
has a strong cleanup focus to assess and clean up leaks from USTs, including those at
brownfield sites contaminated with petroleum. 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. In addition,
the program works very closely with, and provides assistance to, states to help them meet
their continuing responsibilities, as well as their responsibilities authorized under the
EPAct.
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/
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 6
-------
In addition to these program priorities, 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 society4. 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 controls5
identified as part of the remedy are in place.
Data for FY 2007 and FY 2008 will be released in 2009. In FY 2010, OSWER programs
will be expected to collect and report this data on an ongoing basis.
VIII. Measures
On October 11, 2006, the Deputy Administrator signed a memorandum entitled, State
Reporting Burden and Measures Streamlining Initiatives,6 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.
For this Guidance, the Agency has undertaken a review of its measures to improve them
and to ensure alignment with EPA's proposed 2009-2014 Strategic Plan. As a result of
this review, OSWER has made 10 revisions to clarify measures or to align them across
various planning and reporting documents. In addition, the Annual Commitment System
(ACS) measure, "Tons of construction and demolition debris that is reused or recycled,"
has been eliminated and a new measure, "Number of major projects/efforts that support
the implementation and/or development of programmatic components of the national and
4 See following websites for more information on documenting and reporting OSWER's land revitalization
performance measures and indicators: http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/sfff final cprm guidance.pdf.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/resources/guidance^rfields/lr guid.pdf and
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm
5 For more information concerning institutional controls please see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/index.htm
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 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 7
-------
regional RCC efforts to address Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) recycling, industrial
materials (IM) recycling, toxics reduction, or green initiatives," has been implemented.
IX. Significant Changes to Priorities or Strategies from FY 2009
In FY 2010, the Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program plans to develop the
guidelines to pilot a "multi-purpose" grant. This pilot will increase grantee flexibility by
providing up to $550,000 for assessment and cleanup activities at the same site. The new
grant pilot is in response to stakeholder concerns surrounding the delay that can occur
when a site is fully assessed but has not secured funding for cleanup activities. The goals
of the multi-purpose grant pilot are to provide increased flexibility to recipients and
expedite redevelopment efforts at a site. The Brownfields and Land Revitalization
Program plans to evaluate the efficiency of the approach to determine if the pilot should
continue in future years.
The Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program will promote efforts to sustainably
reuse properties by encouraging green planning, design and construction, and renewable
energy development. These efforts can result in better environmental performance and
can help ensure that cleanups are protective after development. The Brownfields and
Land Revitalization Program will also promote green jobs and local hiring at brownfields
and other contaminated properties through its successful Job Training Grant Program.
EPA's Superfund program will direct additional effort and resources to the growing
universe of sites that have reached the post-construction complete phase. Approximately
67 percent of final and deleted NPL sites have achieved construction completion and are
in the post-construction phase of the cleanup pipeline, while many other sites have
achieved completion of other milestones in the cleanup process.
The goal of post-construction completion activities is to ensure that Superfund response
actions at both Federal and private sites provide for the long-term protection of human
health and the environment. Post-construction completion activities also involve
optimizing remedies to increase effectiveness and/or reduce cost without sacrificing long-
term protection of human health and the environment. Five-year reviews generally are
required when hazardous substances remain on site above levels that permit unrestricted
use and unlimited exposure. These reviews are usually performed five years following
the initiation of a CERCLA response action, and are repeated in succeeding five-year
intervals so long as future uses remain restricted. Five-year reviews provide an
opportunity to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine
whether it remains protective of human health and the environment.
The Agency will continue to focus attention on the management of special accounts to
further advance program effectiveness and site cleanups. Superfund 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. In FY 2010, EPA will continue
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 8
-------
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.
X. 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
Art Flaks (703) 603-9088
Janet Weiner (703) 603-8717
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
Carolyn Hoskinson (703) 603-7166
Lynn DePont (703) 603-7148
Hal White (703) 603-7177
Tencil Coffee (703) 603-0053
Felicia Wright (202) 566-1886
Jeffrey Kohn (202) 566-1407
Cathy Allen (202) 566-1039
Pat Carey (202) 566-0 199
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 9
-------
Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response Programs
Goal Three: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land
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) 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 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
being conducted by other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DoD)
and the Department of Energy. 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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 10
-------
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 supports 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.
Working together with Federal, state and tribal partners, the Superfund Response
program accomplished the following activities in FY 2008:8
Completed 415 final assessment decisions, for a cumulative total of 40,187 sites
completing final assessment decisions since the program's inception.
Selected cleanup plans at 73 sites; amended 8 cleanup plans; and issued 42
explanations of significant differences at 39 sites
Conducted or oversaw 681 ongoing construction projects (by EPA, potentially
responsible parties and federal facilities) at 423 sites
Obligated more than $55 million in appropriated funds, state cost-share
contributions, and potentially responsible party settlement resources for 16 new
construction projects ranked by the National Risk-Based Priority Panel at 15
National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
Determined that the land at a net total of 85 additional NPL sites was ready for
anticipated use sitewide.
Achieved control of all identified unacceptable human exposures at a net total of
24 additional sites, bringing the program's cumulative total to 1306 sites under
control.
Achieved control of the migration of contaminated groundwater through
engineered remedies or natural processes at a net total of 20 additional sites,
bringing the program's cumulative total to 997 sites under control.
Achieved construction completion at 30 sites for a cumulative total of 1060 NPL
sites. In addition, 9 sites were deleted from the NPL for a cumulative total of 329
NPL site deletions.
Conducted 221 Five-year reviews.
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/documents/baseclosure.htm.
8 For more information regarding the program's cumulative accomplishments through FY 2008, please
refer to the Goal 3 Chapter of the Agency's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report at
www. epa. gov/ocfo.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 11
-------
Program Priorities
In FY 2010, 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.
In addition to its cleanup work, the Superfund program will also 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 increased effort and resources
on the growing universe of sites that have reached the post-construction complete phase.
It is anticipated that this focused activity will yield short term increases in the number of
sites determined to be Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use. This is due to two factors:
(1) a significant portion of NPL sites are already in the post construction phase and (2)
the remaining sites not yet Construction Complete generally require more complex
remedies and greater funding and personnel resources to manage.
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.
Performance Goals for FY 2010:
(1) 330 remedial final site assessment decisions;
(2) A net increase of 10 NPL sites with human exposures under control;
(3) A net increase of 15 sites with groundwater migration under control;
(4) A net increase of 65 sites deemed ready for anticipated use sitewide;
(5) 22 construction completions; and
(6) 7.0 sites with current or long-term exposure controlled per million dollars
expended (PART efficiency measure).
The Superfund Federal Facilities program underwent a PART assessment entitled "EPA
Support for Cleanup of Federal Facilities" in FY 2005 and received an overall rating of
"moderately effective." As follow-up to the PART, the program has been working with
other Federal agencies to attain long-term environmental measures. These efforts will
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 12
-------
continue in FY 2010. In addition, the program conducted an evaluation aimed at policy
review in FY 2006 to ensure policies and guidance documents are still relevant and
comprehensive. The program implemented several of the resulting recommendations in
FY 2007. Additionally, another program evaluation was conducted in FY 2008. Results
and recommendations generated from this evaluation are being implemented in FY 2009
and in 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 2010, the
Superfund program will focus on cleaning up sites and returning them to beneficial
reuse. The general approach for achieving these goals will be assessing the worst sites
first, ensuring that human exposure to toxic chemicals and migration of contaminated
groundwater are under control, selecting remedies that optimize reuse and revitalization,
completing construction of remedies and ensuring sites are ready for anticipated use.
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.
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 utilize its resources so that its activities use natural resources and
energy efficiently, reduce negative impacts on the environment, minimize or eliminate
pollution at its source, and reduce waste to the greatest extent possible. This strategy
supports the Agency's strategic plan for compliance and environmental stewardship9.
The practice of "green remediation" uses these strategies to consider all environmental
effects of remedy implementation for contaminated sites and incorporates options to
maximize the net environmental benefit of cleanup actions10. In FY 2010, Superfund will
continue its efforts to advance green remediation practices and identify new opportunities
and tools to make "greener" decisions across Superfund cleanup sites.
In FY 2010, 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 2008, approximately 67
percent of NPL sites had achieved construction completion, while many other sites had
9 U.S. EPA Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2006
10 http://cluin.org/greenremediation/
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 13
-------
achieved significant progress toward completion of all remedies. EPA plans to conduct
over 280 five-year reviews in FY 2010, and the Agency will continue to need resources
to conduct activities 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.
The EPA Regions, with Headquarters oversight, will continue to evaluate all construction
complete sites to ensure that necessary institutional controls (ICs) have been
implemented. 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.
The Agency will continue to focus attention on the management of special accounts to
further advance program effectiveness and site cleanups in FY 2010. 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.
11 Please visit the following website to search Superfund site information:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 14
-------
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
EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks posed by accidental and intentional releases
of hazardous substances and oil to human health and the environment. Under the
National Response System (NRS), EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard evaluate thousands of
spills and releases annually and often respond to the incidents. The Federal response is
essentially a safety net to address the incidents that are beyond the capability of, or
otherwise cannot be adequately addressed by, the state, Tribal or local agency or
responsible party. EPA's primary role in the NRS is to serve as the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC) for spills and releases in the inland zone.
The NRS is a multi-agency preparedness and response mechanism that includes the
National Response Center, the National Response Team (composed of 16 Federal
agencies), 13 Regional Response Teams and Federal OSCs. These organizations work
with state and local officials to develop and maintain contingency plans that will enable
the Nation to respond effectively to hazardous substance and oil emergencies. When an
incident occurs, these groups coordinate with the OSC in charge to ensure that all
necessary resources, such as personnel and equipment, are available and that
containment, cleanup, and disposal activities proceed quickly, efficiently and effectively.
To prepare for large-scale responses to incidents such as the World Trade Center, the
anthrax attacks, and the Columbia Shuttle recovery, 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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 15
-------
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
emergency response operations.
In 2007, EPA made major revisions to its Core ER assessment tool. These changes
included the reorganization of elements, the revision of standard language, the
modification of criteria to better reflect standards, and the inclusion of criteria that better
measure EPA's capability to respond to multiple Incidents of National Significance. The
regional average score has been used as a GPRA measure. Beginning in 2009, the Core
NAR assessment tool will replace Core ER. The purpose of Core NAR is to build upon
the Core ER concept while integrating the priority elements of EPA's NAR Preparedness
Plan, and the Homeland Security Priority Workplan, to reflect an Agency-wide
assessment of progress.
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. EPA amended the SPCC regulation in December 2006 and proposed
additional amendments in 2007.12 Facilities will have to develop and/or amend SPCC
plans in compliance with the amended regulation in 2009. EPA inspects approximately
1,000 SPCC facilities each year.
Measures and Targets
Annual Output Measures and FY 2010 targets:
Removal: PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC, and UAO
actions) overseen by EPA. (target 170).
Removal: Superfund-lead removal actions completed (target: 170).
Oil: Percent of facilities brought into compliance (SPCC)(target: 15%).
Oil: Percent of facilities brought into compliance (FRP) (target: 15%).
Homeland Security: Score for Core NAR evaluation, (target: 55%)
12 For more information on EPA's proposed amendments to the SPCC regulation, please see
http://www.epa.gov/OEM/content/spcc/spcc oct07.htm
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 16
-------
Long-term Output 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.
Efficiency Measures:
Removal: Human exposure avoided per million dollars spent on fund-lead
removal actions (EPA FTE/Travel costs and extramural dollars spent).
Removal: Human exposure avoided per million dollars spent on PRP-lead
removal actions (EPA FTE/Travel Costs).
Oil: Total gallons of oil storage capacity verified as safely stored at inspected
FRP and SPCC facilities during the reporting period per one million program
dollars spent annually on prevention and preparedness. (Please note this is one
measure combining FRP and SPCC because some facilities are subject to both
regulations.)
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.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 17
-------
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.
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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 18
-------
facilities that warrant increased focus by the Agency on the implementation of accident
prevention and emergency planning and response regulations at such facilities.
In March 2007, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)
published its final report on the March 2005 accident at the BP America refinery in Texas
City, Texas. This accident resulted in 15 deaths, 180 injuries, and over $1.5 billion in
financial losses. The CSB investigation report recommended among other things that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) implement a national emphasis
program for all oil refineries to focus on factors that caused or contributed to the BP
accident. In response, OSHA has committed to conduct comprehensive Process Safety
Management (PSM) inspections at all PSM-regulated refineries in Federal OSHA states
over the next two years and to encourage states that administer their own OSHA plan to
implement a similar emphasis program.
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
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 also collects information on the number of RMP audits and/or facility inspections
completed each year. The performance target for the number of RMP audits/inspections
is 400 per year. In FY 2007, EPA and delegated states conducted 750 field
audits/inspections and, in FY 2008, conducted 627 audits/inspections. Under GPRA, EPA
has set the following two strategic targets for the RMP program:
Measures and Targets
Annual Output Measure and FY 2010 Targets:
Number of risk management audits/inspections completed (target 400).
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 19
-------
Long-Term Measure and Target:
By 2014, conduct 2,400 inspections and audits at RMP facilities.
Useful websites:
Office of Emergency Management http://www.epa.gov/oem
National Response Team (NRT) http://www.nrt.org
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 20
-------
Brownfields Cleanup and Land Revitalization Program
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Subobjective 4.2.3: Assess and Clean Up Brownfields
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 Targets:
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.
Performance Goals for FY 2010:
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).
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 grants to communities. Brownfields Assessment grants provide funding to
inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement
activities related to brownfields sites. Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund grants provide
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 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 21
-------
funding for a grantee to capitalize a revolving loan and for a grantee to make subgrants to
carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites. Brownfields Cleanup grants 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
grants. 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 Grants 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. Grant 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/rptforms.htm
Recipients of Assessment, Cleanup, Revolving Loan Fund Grants, and Job Training
Grants 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.
Brownfields State and Tribal Response Programs Grants
EPA will continue to work in partnership with state and Tribal programs to address
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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 22
-------
local problems. 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.htm#grant
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/rptforms.htm
State and tribal response program grants contribute to the Brownfields program overall
accomplishments. The Property Profile Forms submitted by state and tribal grantees 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.
Brownfields and OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
The Brownfields program received a PART evaluation in 2003. At that time, the
program received an "adequate" rating. The program then prepared and is currently
implementing an improvement plan. The improvement plan addresses program
performance and efficiency measures, information collection procedures, and program
evaluation.
Information on the Brownfields program's PART evaluation and improvement
plan is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10001132.2003.html
Information on EPA's 2009-2014 Strategic Plan is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/pdfs/strategic plan change document 9-30-08.pdf
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 23
-------
Cross-Program Revitalization Measures
The Brownfields program has implemented the Cross-Program Revitalization Measures
supporting OSWER's effort to promote and communicate cleanup- and revitalization-
related accomplishments and associated benefits to society. The program is using
Property Profile Form data to report on the Universe Indicator (properties and acres
where assessment or cleanup reported complete for the first time under a Brownfields
grant) and Types of Uses Indicator (Greenspace, Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and
Mixed Use). The program is also using the Property Profile Form to collect information
on the "Ready for Reuse" measure (based on status of cleanup and institutional controls
(ICs)) which equates to both "Protective for People under Current Conditions" (PFP) and
"Ready for Anticipated Use" (RAU) measures.
Information concerning OSWER's Cross-Program Revitalization Measures may
be found at: http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-
10-20-06covermemo.pdf
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 24
-------
RCRA Waste Management Programs
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.1: Reduce Waste Generation and Increase Recycling
The RCRA program will emphasize its strategy to conserve resources, reduce waste,
reduce priority chemicals and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through effective
materials management. The 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. ORCR's specific commitments for the RCC are identified in
the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) OSW Workplan/ Deliverables for FY
200914. Many of the activities described in the workplan will continue into FY 2010.
Regions will be expected to champion and support the four national RCC focus areas:
Recycling of MSW;
Green initiatives: electronics and green building;
Reusing and recycling of industrial materials; and
Reducing priority chemicals; (covered under sub-objective 5.2.1);
Recycling of MSW
Under EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, we maintained our goal of recycling 35% of
municipal solid waste by 2008. ORCR and the Regions have identified a new long-term
2011 GPRA goal of 80 billion pounds, to replace the current 35% MSW recycling goal.
This goal is composed of a recycling target of approximately 20 billion pounds annually
over a four year period (2008-2011). This new, long-term goal will more directly reflect
EPA's influence, resources, and contributions to the nation's goal of increasing municipal
solid waste recycling.
The new 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."
EPA Regions and ORCR will continue to focus their primary MSW recycling efforts on
the three targeted materials: paper, organics (food waste and green yard waste), and
packaging/containers. EPA's MSW Recycling Implementation Plan includes specific
activities each Region will commit to undertake and identifies approaches and tools to
support these activities. Regions should also actively recruit new WasteWise partners.
For FY 2010, ORCR is requesting that all Regions identify ACS commitments in the area
of MSW recycling that contribute toward our national recycling and energy conservation
and greenhouse gas reduction goals.
14 For more information concerning the RCC, please see http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/index.htm
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 25
-------
EPA Regions should base their FY 2010 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 should continue general outreach efforts to promote MSW recycling and
implement the activities listed in the MSW Recycling Implementation Plan. 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 under the RCC. 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
EPA has several approaches for promoting reuse and recycling of electronic equipment.
The Responsible Recycling Practices for Electronics Recyclers are completed, and
Regions should work with states and recyclers to make them familiar with the guidelines,
providing information and encouraging their widespread use. 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 towards 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
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA), as well as discussions
on national program direction.
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 2010, ORCR and EPA Regions will continue ongoing efforts to
green commercial buildings, stadiums and other venues, and infrastructure projects
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 26
-------
through various RCC programs and initiatives.
Industrial Materials Reuse and Recycling Program
ORCR, working with the Regions, has developed a draft Industrial Materials Recycling
(EVIR) 3-Year Strategy. EPA Regions will be working on the priority activities that build
on that strategy throughout FY 2010. 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 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, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce costs, and enhance green
construction. Regions should continue to develop effective working relationships with
states 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
stakeholders such as the Industrial Resources Council (IRC), and the Associated General
Contractors of America.
Measuring and reporting on success is a critical component of any credible program.
EPA established two FY 2011 GPRA goals in its strategic plan: increase the use of coal
combustion products to 50%; and, increase the reuse and recycling of C&D materials to
65%. 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.
In FY 2009, we updated the construction and demolition materials characterization.
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 2010, 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. Regions should
continue to recruit and support partners for the Coal Combustion Products Partnership
(C2P2). Using the partnership program bundling approach and resources from the
Construction Initiative, 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.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 27
-------
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum Products Properly
In FY 2010, the permitting program will collectively achieve 100 additional annual
accomplishments for initial and updated approved 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 2010 annual goal and
the FY 2011 strategic goal.
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 in determining the prioritization of facilities to be addressed in the
multi-year strategies.
During FY 2010, Regions should work with the states towards 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% of the facilities on the permitting baseline under
approved controls, and updating controls at additional facilities, for a total of 500
facilities between FY 2007 and FY 2011. ORCR, in partnership with the Regions and
states, will be developing the next generation of strategic goals to demonstrate the
magnitude of environmental benefits delivered by the program.
In 2004, OMB assessed the RCRA base program, permits and grants under the PART,
which is used to determine the effectiveness of Federal programs. As an outcome of this
assessment, a new efficiency measure was proposed 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 2010 is 3.72 facilities per million dollars of program
cost, a 1% increase over the FY 2009 target.
Regions are to work closely with states to ensure that environmental regulations,
applicable Federal environmental justice policies, strategies, tools and training programs
are used to adequately address environmental justice concerns. Progress towards RCRA
GPRA goals in potential environmental justice communities should advance at least at
the same pace as in other communities.
After substantial work by OECA, ORCR, and the RCRAInfo V4 Design Team,
mandatory financial assurance data elements jointly decided by EPA and states as part of
the WIN/Informed process are now being added to RCRAInfo and will become a part of
our data system. This information (1) will allow states to coordinate their review of these
instruments better, (2) will provide state and national information on the types of
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 28
-------
instruments used and their providers, and (3) fulfills commitments the Agency has made
to the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office.
Details on the mandatory data elements and data entry were provided to the RCRAInfo
users' community in the Consolidated High Level Design Document. These data
elements will require states to input information on the financial assurance instruments
that are being used by treatment, storage and disposal facilities. The modifications to the
data system are expected to be complete in the second quarter of FY 2009. We are
requesting that by the end of FY 2009 states will have input information on 40% of the
covered facilities. Our current expectation is that data for the remaining facilities will be
input by the end of FY 2010.
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 2010:
Assist tribal governments to ensure that an additional 23 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, 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
populate the database by the end of 2009, Regions should continue in 2010 to update the
data and perform any necessary data clean up.
Furthermore, EPA has recently 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.
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 2010. 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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 29
-------
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 envisions meeting all three goals at 95 percent of the 2020 Universe by the end of
FY 2020.
Performance Goals for FY 2010:
EPA has set the following three national targets for 2010:
1. Human Exposures El - 63 percent (2,360 facilities).
2. Groundwater El - 55 percent (2,060 facilities).
3. Remedy Construction - 30 percent (1,124 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 2010 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 2009.
Further Information
All Regions should work with states to achieve the FY 2010 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 2010, 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 need to begin.
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 three percent. Given cost projections, each Region should work with its states to
increase the number of final remedy components constructed during FY 2010 by roughly
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 30
-------
four percent over FY 2009 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 (CA550) events recorded in RCRAInfo each fiscal
year.
Regions should support and work closely with states to ensure that environmental
regulations, applicable Federal environmental justice (EJ) policies, strategies, tools and
training programs are used to adequately address EJ concerns. Progress towards RCRA
GPRA goals in potential EJ communities should advance at least at the same pace as in
non EJ areas. Regions should work with their states to help develop and offer innovative
approaches that will empower citizens' groups to ensure successful voluntary cleanups.
PCBs
In an effort to improve program and administrative efficiencies, the management of the
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 Act (TSCA) and its regulations.
As a result, OSWER will now be 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 2010, Regions are expected to continue
to issue approvals for PCB cleanup and disposal as required under 40 CFR Part 761.
OSW is assessing the current ACS measures and will be working with the Regions to
update for FY 2010.
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. The strategic goal, as stated in the 2009 - 2014 EPA
Strategic Plan, is: by 2014, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals and other
chemicals of national concern from waste streams as measured by National Partnership
for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) contributions, Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs), and EPA initiatives including Servicizing, the Mercury Challenge and
industry agreements to achieve reductions priority chemicals and chemicals of national
concern.
In FY 2010, EPA will achieve NPEP reductions of priority chemicals and chemicals of
national concern 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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 31
-------
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 reductions 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 and may contribute to additional regional or state specific chemical
reduction goals. Decisions regarding chemicals (in addition to the 31 priority chemicals)
selected for reduction are based on the chemical waste minimization potential, risk, and
generation trends as well as volume of chemical released to the environment.
Information on the specific actions and means by which reductions are achieved is
provided in the RCC Priority Chemical Action Plan. At this time there are no specific
GPRA goals associated with the identification of other chemicals of national concern.
However, the priority chemicals list is currently being reevaluated as part of the 2009-
2014 strategic planning process.
The projected FY 2010 national goal is to reduce priority chemicals by 750,000 pounds.
This may be adjusted, depending on FY 2009 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 0.6 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.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 32
-------
In FY 2008 and 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 2010, 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. EPA submitted an Information
Collection Request to OMB at the end of FY 2008 to allow EPA to collect data on
partner achievements and program management.
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 (including training for pre-service teachers),
purchasing, and planning; and recognize successes through SC3 awards.
In FY 2010, 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 assure 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 2010 will be
measured by the number of partnership agreements established, schools affected, and
sustainable practices established.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 33
-------
Underground Storage Tanks Program
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Subobjective 3.1.2: Manage Hazardous Wastes and Petroleum Products Properly (UST)
Subobjective 3.2.2: Clean Up and Revitalize Contaminated Land (LUST)
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.15 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 states16 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.
Regulatory Framework
Regulations promulgated by EPA in 1988 establish the regulatory framework for
achieving the program's goal. Regulations at 40 CFRPart 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:
15 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.gov/owow/305bA.
16 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.V/uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml).
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 34
-------
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 guidance17 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
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
17 Funding provided to states must be expended in accordance with grant guidelines (see
http://www.epa.gov/swenistl/fedlaws/epact_05.htm) EPA issued to implement Title XV, Subtitle B of the
EPAct (see http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/fedlaws/publ_l09-058.pdf), and the May 7, 2008 Program
Guidance: Office of Underground Storage Tanks' Prevention Assistance Agreements Awarded Under the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund Program.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 35
-------
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 2010 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. For the Tribal Grants: P.L. 105-276. STAG funding is
provided in grants and cooperative agreements to assist states, territories, Federally-
recognized Indian tribes and Intertribal Consortia that meet the requirements at 40 CFR
35.504, 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. There is no
matching requirement for grants to tribes or Intertribal Consortia under Public Law 105-
276.18 State matches may include in-kind contributions.
LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements for UST Release Prevention Activities
Any LUST funding appropriated in FY 2010 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
18 See Program Number 66.804 of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CDFA) at
http://www.cfda.sov/pls/portal30/CATALOG.PROGRAM TEXT RPT.show
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 36
-------
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
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, 1994.19 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.
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
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
19 See http://www. epa.gov/swerustl/directiv/d96501 Oa. htm
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 37
-------
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, Territories and for Tribes for UST State Grants and
Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements: Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA) of 1976, as amended; Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986, Subtitle
I, Section 2007(f); Public Law 105-276.
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.
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 of 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
containment for new tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and
installers.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 38
-------
(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 2010:
The annual goal is to 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. The FY 2010
target is 65.5%.
The annual goal is to 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 480,000 confirmed
releases. The EPA, states, and tribes have worked together to clean up over 377,000 of
these, leaving a backlog of approximately 103,000 remaining to be completed.20
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
Brownfields"). Another important resource EPA provides to states and tribes is
1 For the most current corrective action measures, see http://www.epa.sov/swerustl/cat/camarchv.htm
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 39
-------
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 FY 2010:
The annual goal is to complete 12,250 leaking UST cleanups that meet risk-
based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration (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 strategy21 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 towards 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 2010 in Indian country:
The annual goal is to complete 30 leaking UST cleanups in Indian country
that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater
migration.
21 Strategy for An EPA/Tribal Partnership To Implement Section 1529 Of The EPAct Of 2005, August
2006, EPA-510-F-06-005, http://www.epa.sov/OUST/fedlaws/Tribal%20Stratesv_080706r.pdf
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 40
-------
Program Priorities and Initiatives
Implementing the EPAct The UST provisions of the EPAct significantly affect the
program at both the Federal and state level. Among other things, it expands eligible uses
of the LUST Trust Fund, and includes a number of provisions to strengthen program
implementation. To implement EPAct, EPA and states and tribes are working closely
with other Federal agencies, tank owners and operators, and other stakeholders to bring
about the mandated changes affecting underground storage tank facilities.22 Key
objectives of EPAct implementation include: (1) conducting more frequent inspections;
(2) prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks; and (3) requiring either secondary
containment for new tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and
installers.
Improving Compliance EPA recognizes that compliance with UST regulations offers
the best prospects for preventing releases, detecting releases as soon after they occur as
practicable, and cleaning up releases as early as possible to minimize harmful
environmental impacts and protect human health. Key objectives of this initiative
include: (1) providing assistance to states and tribes in implementing the UST program;
(2) providing assistance and alternative mechanisms (e.g., conducting more frequent
inspections, prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks, and requiring either secondary
containment for tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers)
to states to help them meet their new responsibilities authorized under the EPAct23; (3)
conducting inspections of all tanks in Indian country once every three years; (4)
encouraging owners and operators to properly operate and maintain their USTs; (5)
ensuring owners and operators routinely and correctly monitor all regulated tanks and
piping in accordance with the regulations; and (6) developing state programs with
sufficient authority and enforcement capabilities to operate in lieu of the Federal
program.
Reducing the Cleanup Backlog Achieving annual leaking underground storage tanks
goals has become increasingly challenging to EPA and our state and tribal partners.
Factors affecting this challenge include the increasing costs and complexity of cleanups,
decreasing state budgets and increasing state workloads, and other factors.
EPA has initiated a project to collect more information on the existing backlog, and to
engage states and Regions in developing national and state-specific strategies to
reinvigorate cleanups. Key objectives of this initiative include: (1) achieving a better
understanding of the current backlog of sites and remaining administrative legal and
technical impediments to cleanup; (2) monitoring the soundness of state cleanup funds, a
significant source of funding for addressing leaking UST cleanups; (3) promoting the
continued use, reuse, and long-term management of leaking UST sites; (4) focusing on
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of leaking UST cleanups nationwide; (5)
22 For further information and final EPA grant guidance, see
\\ttp ://www. epa. gov/swemstl/fedlaws/EPActUST. htm.
23 The Energy Policy Act imposed a number of conditions on states receiving funding. For details see
http://www. epa.gov/swerustl/fedlaws/EPActUST. htm
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 41
-------
addressing contaminants of concern and the impact of contaminants; (6) optimizing the
use of cleanup technologies and the dissemination of green remediation approaches; and
(7) streamlining cleanup decisions and processes.
Revitalizing Abandoned Gas Stations About 200,000 brownfield sites are estimated to
be contaminated with petroleum products. Many of these sites are old, abandoned gas
stations. In addition to the grant funds that EPA provides to communities to assess and
clean up petroleum brownfield sites, OSWER has begun a much more aggressive effort
to support the reuse and revitalization of those sites in order to help communities
strengthen their local economies. To that end, in September 2008 OSWER released to the
public a Petroleum Brownfields Revitalization Action Plan24 that presents a
comprehensive strategy for putting petroleum brownfields back into productive use.
OUST asks regional and state UST and Brownfields programs to review the 17 action
items in the Plan and consider those where they would like to get involved.
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 cleanups 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.
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 (RPM) 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
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
See http://www.epa.sov/swerustl/rass/petrobfactionplan.pdf.
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 42
-------
complete, up-to-date, and accurate.25 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.
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.
Specific directions for this data reporting will be provided to Regions via memoranda
from the OUST Office Director.
25 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 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 43
-------
Deliverable Dates for State and Regional Programs.
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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 44
-------
This page intentionally left blank
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 45
-------
Synopsis of OSWER's Feedback Process
Upon receiving the draft 2010 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 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 46
-------
OSWER NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER GUIDANCE
GRANTS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
FOR FY 2010
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 2011.
For FY 2010, Regions and States will continue to report performance results against the set of
State grant measures into Measures Central. Further guidance will be issued shortly from
OGD/OCFO/OCIR detailing the alternatives for FY 2010 in ensuring that grant workplans
contain the required elements. In the meantime, ORBIT reports will continue to be available to
report results by state and by grant.
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:
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 47
-------
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. 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,
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 48
-------
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.
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.
2.
award;
Compliance with all programmatic terms and conditions;
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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 49
-------
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 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, 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
Draft FY 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 50
-------
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, 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 2010 OSWER Implementation Guidance, Page 51
-------
Attachment 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2010 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 (PART).
Minimize the number of confirmed releases at LIST facilities to 9,000 or fewer each year (PART).
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 (PART).
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 (PART).
Number of PRP removal completions (including voluntary, AOC, and UAO actions) overseen by EPA.
Percent of all FRP facillities found to be non-compliant will be brought into compliance (PART).
Percent of all SPCC facilities found to be non-compliant will be brought into compliance (PART).
Score on Core NAR evaluation.
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration (PART).
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
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Nat.
Target
20.5 B
N/A
100
< 9,000
(LIST
releases)
65.5%
23
22
170
170
15%
15%
55%
12,250
Attachment I, page 1
-------
Attachment 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2010 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
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 (PART).
Number of Superfund final site assessment decisions (PART).
Number of Superfund construction completions (PART).
Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control (PART).
Number of Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under control (PART).
Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures under control (PART).
Number of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under control (PART).
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
State
Grant
Measure
(Y/N)
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Nat.
Target
30
330
22
10
10
125
107
126
65
95%
Attachment I, page 2
-------
Attachment 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY2010 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 (PART).
Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
Acres of Brownfields property made ready for reuse (PART).
Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields sites (PART).
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 (PART).
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
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 2010 STATE GRANT MEASURES APPENDIX
Type of
Categorical
Grant
RCRA
UST
UST
LUST
LUST
RCRA
RCRA
Brownfields
Brownfields
G/O/S
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
3.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.3
ACS
Code
HWO
ST1
ST6
112
113
CA1
CAS
B29
B32
Measure Text
Number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls.
Minimize the number of confirmed releases at UST facilities to 9,000 or fewer each year
Increase the percenatge of UST facilities that are in signifcant operational compliance (SOC) with both
release detection and release prevention requirements by 0.5% over the previous year's target, rate of
significant operational compliance by 1 % over the previous year's target.
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration
Number of LUST cleanups completed that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration in Indian Country.
Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures under control.
Number of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed.
Number of Brownfields properties assessed.
Properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding.
Nat.
Target
100
9,000
65.5%
12,250
30
125
126
1,000
60
Attachment I
-------
OSWER ARRA Measures
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Brownfields
Superfund
Superfund
Superfund
Superfund
Superfund
Superfund
Superfund
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
Number of properties assessed
Number of properties cleaned
Amount of dollars leveraged
Number of jobs leveraged
Acres ready for reuse
Percentage of participants obtaining employment from Job Training Grants
Number of Assessment Starts
Number of Assessments completed with Recovery Funds
Number of Cleanup Starts
Number of loans and/or subgrants made by Revolving Loan Fund Grant Recipients
Total number of sites in receipt of Recovery Act funding
Total number of projects in receipt of Recovery Act funding
Number of sites with new construction in receipt of Recovery Act funding
Number of projects with new construction in receipt of Recovery Act funding
Percentage of available Recovery Act funding obligated to projects
Number of sites achieving construction completed with Recovery Act funding
Number of sites achieving human exposure under control with Recovery Act funding
Direct Site Assessments Initiated
Indirect Site Assessments Initiated
Direct Site Assessments Completed
Indirect Site Assessments Completed
Direct Cleanups Initiated
Indirect Cleanups Initiated
Direct Cleanups Completed
Indirect Cleanups Completed
Note: ARRA measures are subject to change.
Attachment
-------
Attachment 4
Comments and Response to Comments Summary
on OSWER's FY 2010 Draft NPM Guidance
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
Commenter (s)
Location 1 NPM Response
in Draft 1
Guidance 1
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
Issue Area: Program Priorities
The first priority listed is
Revitalization, which mentions
cleaning up Superfund sites in
passing, rather than the priority
being our core mission to clean up
sites, with revitalization as an
implementation strategy and
beneficial outcome of the cleanup.
The priority paragraph doesn't
mention anything at all about
protecting human health and the
environment. It also doesn't
mention using enforcement to hold
responsible parties accountable for
performing or paying for cleanups,
but rather uses the term
"accommodate" with regards to
getting cleanups done. As one
branch chief worded it, this is
worded as if "the tail is wagging the
dog." The word "accommodate"
should be deleted and the emphasis
should be place more on the three
points mentioned above.
Region 5,
Superfund
Division
Page 1,
Section III
Agreed.
We agree with these comments
and will revise page 1 of the
executive summary
accordingly.
Issue Area: OSWER Implementation Strategies
There is a typo in the first sentence:
should be National "Priorities" List
Region 5,
Superfund
Division
Page 5, 1 Agreed.
Section VII 1
1
Corrected typo on page 5 of
the final guidance.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
In the last sentence of the second
paragraph, the phrase "and some
BRAC sites" is a bit confusing or
awkward. If what this is meant to
say is that we only work at some
BRAC sites, this might be better
worded as "at NPL sites and those
BRAC sites with active EPA
involvement" or something such as
that.
Commenter (s)
Region 5,
Superfund
Division
Location
in Draft
Guidance
Page 5,
Section VII
NPM Response
Agreed.
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
We will revise the text, as
suggested.
Issue Area: Brownfields
Continue Brownfields Funding: We
look forward to continued strong
support from EPA, and see
Brownfields projects as having
excellent potential under the federal
economic stimulus package.
New England
Commissioners
Page 21,
Brownfield
and Land
Revitalizati
on
EPA looks forward to working with the
New England Commissioners to help
assess and cleanup Brownfield sites.
No change to document.
Issue Area: Waste Management and Minimization
Recycling & Materials
Management: We seek federal
support and incentives to enhance
regional recycling and processing
capacity. EPA can be particularly
helpful in setting standards,
providing guidance, and identifying
particular waste-to-recycling
streams.
New England
Commissioners
Page 25,
RCRA
Waste
Manageme
nt
OSWER is currently working with
American National Standards Institute
National Accreditation Board (ANAB) to
establish a certification program for
responsible recycling (R2) best
management practices (bmp). R2 BMPs
were developed in October 2008.
Guidance and other information on a
broad range of recycling topics, including
waste streams appropriate for recycling
can be accessed from our homepage:
www.epa.aov/epawaste/index.htm
We will continue to work with the EPA
regional offices and states as we further
implement the Resource Conservation
No change to document.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
When evaluating Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plans, regions
should also consider that the plans
are living documents and should
best reflect the needs and issues of
the tribe the plan is intended to
serve.
School Chemical Cleanout is
another effort that will have
beneficial impacts upon
communities and encourages initial
interaction with youth and EPA
Commenter (s)
Santa Clara
Pueblo
Santa Clara
Pueblo
Location
in Draft
Guidance
Page 30,
RCRA
Waste
Manageme
nt
Page 33,
RCRA
Waste
Manageme
nt
NPM Response
Challenge.
OSWER agrees that an Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan must reflect the
needs and issues of the tribe by evaluating
local tribal needs and conditions, and then
selecting and combining the most
appropriate waste management activities
for those conditions. We encourage tribes
to revise their plans to respond to
changing conditions and priorities.
The Schools Chemical Cleanout
Campaign (SC3) aims to ensure that all
schools are free from hazards associated
with mismanaged chemicals. SC3 gives
K-12 schools information and tools to
responsibly manage chemicals.
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
No change to document.
No change to document.
Issue Area: PCB cleanup and disposal program
When OSWER assumed
responsibility for the PCB cleanup
and disposal program in FY-08, it
also assumed responsibility for the
commercial storage and treatment
ofPCBs. OSWER' s decision-
making responsibility for storage
and treatment of PCBs is not
reflected in the narrative found on
pages 3 1 and 32 nor in the
measures found in Attachment # 1 .
Region 4
Pages 31-
32, RCRA
Waste
Manageme
nt
Transfer of the cleanup and disposal
program from OPPTS to OSWER also
included commercial storage and
treatment of PCBs.
The current measures associated with this
program are for cleanup sites. These
measures were in place with EPA's Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics have
not been changed since the program was
transferred. Since we can not anticipate
when a facility will apply for storage or
disposal approval, it is hard to target these
actions. The same is true for targeting
cleanups, but there consistently are more
sites in need of cleanup approvals than
No change to document.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
The narrative text of the draft NPM
at the top of page 35 states:
"During FY 2010, Regions are
expected to continue to issue
approvals for PCB cleanup and
disposal as required under 40 CFR
Part 761. OSW is assessing the
current ACS measures and will be
working with the Regions to update
for FY 2010."
Attachment 1 under Measures
Central Codes PCI and PC2 lists
the following:
PC 1 Number of sites receiving
40 CFR 76 1.61 (a) or (c) approvals
PC2 Number of acres to be
remediated under 40 CFR 76 1 .6 1 (a)
or (c) approvals
There is a disconnect between the
narrative and Attachment 1 in that
"disposal" approvals encompass
several other parts of Part 76 1 in
addition to 761.61(c). Further, PCI
is worded incorrectly insofar as
there is no such thing as a 76 1.61 (a)
approval.
As in 2008 and 2009, the focus of
Commenter (s)
Region 4
Region 4
Location
in Draft
Guidance
Page 35,
RCRA
Waste
Manageme
nt
Attachment
NPM Response
disposal/storage approvals.
The narrative is reiterating that regions
should continue to issue both cleanup and
disposal approvals. However, the ACS
measures only cover cleanups.
761 (a) is not an approval like 761(c) is an
approval, but the regulations specify in
761.61(a)(3)(E)(ii) that the EPA Regional
Administrator will respond in writing to
approve the self-implementing cleanup, to
disapprove of the self-implementing
cleanup, or to require additional
information.
We are aware that there is a significant
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
No change to document.
No change to document.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
the PCB program in the NPM is
clearly remediation oriented. As
we know by now, there is a
tremendous amount of work to be
done on the storage and disposal
(our) side of the PCB house. The
types of PCB approvals we deal
with are:
761.65(d)
761.62(c)
761.75(c)
761.60(e)
761.79(h)
761.70(d)
Essentially, Attachment 1 fails to
recognize at least half (and
probably more) of the PCB work
load here in our Region and across
the country. I'm perfectly happy
operating without any ACS
commitments. However, since this
is OSWER's 3rd NPM since
receiving the gift of the PCB
program (a non-delegable federal
program with statutory authority), I
would say it's about time the
"programs" folks got some credit
(and funding) for the work they are
doing.
Commenter (s)
Location
in Draft
Guidance
I, Measures
Appendix
NPM Response
amount of PCB work being done
throughout the country that is not covered
in the ACS measures. It is difficult to
develop measures that allow for the
inconsistent and unpredictable aspects of
incoming approval applications (how
many, what kind, level of difficulty).
Regional insight and input will be
important in developing measures that
accurately represent the work being done.
HQ will continue to work with the
Regions to develop appropriate new
measures for the PCB program.
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
Issue Area: Priority Chemical Reduction Activities
Recommend two additional
Region 4
Page 32, | We believe that your suggestions go
No change to document.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
activities be placed on Page 32,
under Priority Chemical Reduction
Activities:
Support Priority Chemical
Reduction activities through State
sponsored (and EPA assisted)
School Chemical Cleanout
Campaign initiatives, which an
emphasis in removing mercury
from schools; and
Collection of vehicle mercury
switches under the End of Life
Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) and
National Vehicle Mercury Switch
Recovery Program (NVMSRP) are
reportable under Priority Chemicals
of the RCC if they come from
automobile salvage yards
unaffiliated with Automobile
Recyclers Association. To date,
other States have reported pounds
collected ranging from 60 to 90 Ibs
of mercury.
Commenter (s)
Location
in Draft
Guidance
RCRA
Waste
Manageme
nt
NPM Response
beyond the level of specificity that this
guidance is intended to convey and may
be better addressed in your RCC Action
Plan. We look forward to working with
you as you further develop your
suggestions.
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
Issue Area: Emergency Preparedness and Response
The criteria for facilities who
reported RMP worst-case scenario
population exceeding 500,000
people is incorrect. The correct
number is 100,000.
The last sentence before the
Measure and Targets incorrectly
refers to three targets (rather than
two).
EPA Region 10
EPA Region 10
Page 19,
Emergency
Response
and
Prevention
Page 20,
Emergency
Response
and
Agreed.
Agreed.
Guidance will use 100,000.
Will revise page 20 to read
'two' strategic targets.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
OSWER-OEM drafted a (2-4-09)
Strategic Direction document for
CEPP (FY09-FY14) that includes a
long-term measure and target of
2,000 inspections by 20 14. The
draft OSWER NPM Guidance
includes a target of 2,400
inspections by 2014. These values
should be consistent.
Regions should work with tribal
consortia to provide compliance
assistance in reducing risks from
chemical accidents.
Please clarify the second bullet
under Long-term Output Measures
so that it's clear that the removal
action is a completion.
The criteria for identifying high risk
RMP facilities subject to inspection
should be verified - the Guidance
defines high risk facilities as those
that have reported a worst-case
scenario population exceeding
500,000 people. The OECANPM
Guidance provides the same
criteria, but revised the population
number to 100,000 people.
Response to incidents involving
Commenter (s)
EPA Region 10
Santa Clara
Pueblo
EPA, Region 10
EPA, Region 3
Santa Clara
Location
in Draft
Guidance
Prevention
Page 20,
Emergency
Response
and
Prevention
Page 18,
Emergency
Response
and
Prevention
Page 17,
Emergency
Response
and
Prevention
Page 19,
Emergency
Response
and
Prevention
Page 15,
NPM Response
The correct number is 2,400. The
Strategic Direction document should be
updated.
OSWER works with tribal governments
as co-regulators, including inter-tribal
consortia that meet our definition. We
will continue to support working with
inter-tribal consortia, as appropriate. We
will share this comment with our regional
programs as part of this support.
We believe that the measure is clearly
stated as, "By 2014, complete an
additional 850 Superfund-lead hazardous
substance removals."
Agreed.
Comment acknowledged.
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
Strategic Direction document
will be revised to reflect our
goal of 2,400 inspections. No
change to the NPM Guidance
narrative.
No change to document.
No change to document.
Will revise page 19 of the
narrative to read '100,000'
people.
No change to document.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
Commenter (s)
Location
in Draft
Guidance
NPM Response
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
harmful substances is a big
component in how the general
public perceives EPA. Effective
response guided by science and
protection of human health and the
environment can leave long lasting
positive impressions of the EPA by
affected communities
Pueblo
Superfund
Remedial
and Federal
Facilities
Response
Programs
Issue Area: Oil Spill Prevention
The Guidance does not specify the
timeframe for achieving
compliance - whether at the time of
the inspection or within the
reporting period. There is added
confusion with respect to the long
term output measure that requires
that by 2014, 60 % of all facilities
found to be non-compliant between
2010-2014 will be brought into
compliance.
EPA, Region 3
Page 16,
Emergency
Response
and
Prevention
In OSWER's FY 2010 NPM Guidance,
the timeframe for achieving targets is the
end of the fiscal year (i.e., September 30,
2010). In FY 2010, OSWER's OEM
expects 15 percent of non-compliant
facilities are to be brought into
compliance. This is a progressive
measure that will build up to 60 percent of
noncompliant facilities being brought into
compliance by 2014.
No change to document.
The Guidance is not clear about
what is to be reported - oil storage
capacity or volume of oil on hand at
one specific point in time (during
an inspection). The Region also
questions the value of this measure.
EPA, Region 3
Page 17,
Emergency
Response
and
Prevention
OSWER's OEM is focusing on storage
capacity for this measure. We believe this
is a valuable measure because the
information collected can be used to
communicate with the public the value of
the program.
We will update page 17 of the
Guidance to reflect oil storage
capacity.
The strategies listed under the
Superfund Removal and Oil
programs are relatively low cost -
non technical efforts that will
generate useful data to make real
changes in chemical material
management.
Santa Clara
Pueblo
Page 5,
Implement
ation
Strategies
Comment acknowledged.
No change to document.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
Commenter (s)
Location 1 NPM Response
in Draft 1
Guidance 1
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
Issue Area: Land Restoration
Institutional Controls should be
seen as the least desirable method
of protection/remediation. The fact
that ICs have not been implemented
where required demonstrates their
ineffectiveness in Superfund site
remediation.
Santa Clara
Pueblo
Page 14,
Superfund
Remedial
and Federal
Facilities
Response
Programs
CERCLA section 121 states Congress'
preference for treatment and permanent
remedies as opposed to simply preventing
exposure through legal controls.
However, when sites cannot be restored
within the remedy selection criteria of the
NCP, institutional controls can be an
effective supplement to engineered
remedies at cleanup sites that are not
available for unrestricted use and
unlimited exposure. The fact that ICs
have not always been implemented where
required demonstrates the complexity in
implementing, monitoring and enforcing
ICs rather than their ineffectiveness.
No change to document.
Issue Area: Additional Areas of Interest
It should be noted EPA/OSWER
support of Tribal Program
Development is also a result of the
EPA Trust Responsibility has for
tribes in the US
Continued education by regions on
CARE initiatives would encourage
Santa Clara
Pueblo
Santa Clara
Pueblo
Page. 3
Section V
Page 4,
Section. IV
The NPM guidance describes the areas
OSWER will focus activities to improve
tribal program development.
Implementing the OSWER Tribal
Strategy is a primary focus. In the
opening paragraph of the OSWER Tribal
Strategy, EPA states, "EPA's OSWER is
committed to protecting human health and
the environment in Indian country while
supporting tribes' self government, acting
consistent with the federal trust
responsibility, and strengthening the
government-to-government relationships
between tribes and EPA."
We agree and intend to follow through on
this important work, and will share this
No change to document.
No change to document.
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
increased participation by local
communities and tribes
Will Abandoned UST efforts be a
part of the priorities?
Exchange Network participation
can be enhanced by working with
tribal consortia to demonstrate
benefits of network
OIR recommends that each
NPM guidance specifically
articulate strong support for and
Commenter (s)
Santa Clara
Pueblo
Santa Clara
Pueblo
EPA Office of
Intergovernment
al Relations
Location
in Draft
Guidance
Page 6
Section.
VII
Page 6,
Section VII
General
comment
NPM Response
comment with appropriate EPA program
staff to help inform them.
OSWER lists as a priority, "Revitalizing
Abandoned Gas Stations" as part of the
national program guidance. Many of the
estimated 200,000 brownfield sites that
are thought to be contaminated with
petroleum products are old, abandoned
gas stations. In addition to the grant funds
that EPA provides to communities to
assess and clean up petroleum brownfield
sites, OSWER has begun a much more
aggressive effort to support the reuse and
revitalization of those sites in order to
help communities strengthen their local
economies. To that end, in September
2008, OSWER released to the public a
Petroleum Brownfields Revitalization
Action Plan that presents a
comprehensive strategy for putting
petroleum brownfields back into
productive use. For more information,
please see
http://www . epa. gov/sw erustl/rags/pe t
robfactionplan.pdf
Agreed. We will continue to support
inter-tribal consortia in this area, as
appropriate.
OSWER strongly encourages the
Regions to continue their efforts to
work closely with the States and
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
No change to document.
No change to document.
No change to document
10
-------
Attachment 4
Comment from regions, state,
tribe, or other stakeholder
Commenter (s)
Location
in Draft
Guidance
NPM Response
Action Taken in Final
Guidance
encourage our Regional Offices
to work very closely with the
States to identify opportunities
for enhanced work sharing,
resource flexibility, and phased
implementation of program
requirements. We already have
two important tools available to
address workloadPerformance
Partnership Agreements and
Performance Partnership Grants.
Any additional tools the
program may have available
should also be highlighted.
agrees that it is important to
encourage resource flexibility and
enhanced work sharing. The
Superfund program will continue to
work with Regions to improve long-
term planning construction estimates
and funding strategies and will also
continue to emphasize the importance
of community involvement throughout
the cleanup process. Our RCRA
program provides guidance that
Regions should support and work
closely with states to ensure that
environmental regulations, applicable
Federal environmental justice (EJ)
policies, strategies, tools and training
programs are used to adequately
address EJ concerns. Finally, our
LUST/UST program promotes
regional coordination with states in
collection and verification of
performance information and offers
extensive tools and implementation
toward realizing that coordination.
11
------- |