oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Final
FY 2013
Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention
National Program Manager
Guidance
740K12001
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
A. INTRODUCTION 5
B. FY 2013 REGIONAL PRIORITIES 5
1. OPP'S CROSS-REGIONAL PRIORITIES 5
2. OPP'S REGION-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES 5
3. OPPT'S PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES 6
C. REGIONAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 7
1. OPP's CROSS-REGIONAL STRATEGIES 7
2. OPP's REGION-SPECIFIC STRATEGIES 7
3. OPPT's PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REGIONAL STRATEGIES 8
D. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO PRIORITIES OR STRATEGIES FROM FY 2012 9
1. OPP 9
2. OPPT 10
E. OCSPP CONTACTS 11
II. CROSS AGENCY PROGRAMS, PRIORITIES, AND REQUIREMENTS 12
A. STRATEGIC PLAN 12
1. Goals and Objectives 12
2. Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategies and Administrator Priorities 12
B. Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism 13
C. STRENGTHENING STATE, TRIBAL AND INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS 13
D. WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH 15
1. OCSPP Program Contributions to Plan EJ 2014 15
2. Title VI 16
E. SUSTAINABILITY 17
Page 2 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
F. BETTER SERVING COMMUNITIES 18
G. OPPORTUNITIES TO GAIN EFFICIENCY 19
H. STATE GRANT WORKPLANS AND PROGRESS REPORTS 20
1. Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 11-03 20
2. State Grant Performance Measures 20
I. ENHANCED COLLABORATION WITH OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE 21
J. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND ALIGNMENT 21
III. OCSPP PROGRAM OVERVIEW 22
IV. OPP REGIONAL OFFICE PROGRAM PRIORITIES 23
A. OPP CROSS-REGIONAL PRIORITIES 24
1. School IPM 24
2. Strengthening State/Tribal Partnerships through Continued Effective Management Grants/Cooperative
Agreements 25
B. OPP REGION-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES 28
1. Guidelines for Regional-Specific Priority Areas to Strengthen State and Tribal Partnerships and Programs 29
2. Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety (Including Soil Fumigation) 30
3. Protection of Water Sources from Pesticide Exposure 32
4. Expansion and Enhancement of Pesticide Protections in Indian Country 34
5. Bed Bug Outreach/Assistance 35
6. Endangered Species 36
7. Support of the Agricultural Sector 36
V. OPPT PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REGIONAL OFFICES PRIORITIES 40
A. LEAD RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM 40
1. Program Description 40
2. Children's Health and Environmental Justice (EJ) 40
3. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices 41
Page 3 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
4. Proposed Regional Offices ACS Measures 42
5. Definitions and Clarification of Measures 42
B. CHEMICAL RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 45
1. Program Description 45
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices 45
3. Proposed Regional Offices ACS Measures 46
4. Definitions and Clarification of Measures 46
C. CHEMICAL RISK REVIEW AND REDUCTION PROGRAM 47
1. Program Description 47
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices 48
D. POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM 48
1. Program Description 48
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices 49
3. Proposed Regional Offices ACS Measures 50
4. Definitions and Clarification of Measures 50
E. COMMUNITY ACTION FOR A RENEWED ENVIRONMENT (CARE) 52
1. Program Description 52
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices 52
3. Proposed Regional Offices ACS Measures 53
4. Definitions and Clarification of Measures 53
Page 4 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
The annual National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance documents set forth program priorities
and key actions for the upcoming year, and therefore serve as important internal controls for
Agency programmatic operations. The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) NPM Guidance outlines our FY 2013 program priorities for EPA regional offices for
each of the national programs managed by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), and defines our FY 2013 program priorities,
implementation strategies and Regional office performance expectations and measures. This
Guidance was developed in coordination with other EPA National Program Managers and
Regional offices, and input received from states, territories, tribes and other concerned
stakeholders. (Throughout this document, the term state may also include territories.) This
Guidance identifies critical activities needed to be conducted by Regional offices to achieve the
FY 2013 Annual Performance Plan as articulated in the FY 2013 President's Budget, guided by
the FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan.
B. FY 2013 REGIONAL PRIORITIES
OCSPP's Regional office program priorities for FY 2013 are:
1. OPP'S CROSS-REGIONAL PRIORITIES
a) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Schools
Decrease exposure of children to pests and pesticides through increased adoption of verifiable
and sustainable IPM programs in schools at the elementary through high school levels.
b) Strengthening State/Tribal Partnerships Through Continued Effective
Management Grants/Cooperative Agreements
Provide oversight to guarantee resources are directed to areas where they are most needed, and
that states are conducting meaningful work in priority areas; and ensure that 100% of State and
Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) funds are obligated within the first year of appropriation.
2. OPP'S REGION-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES
a) Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety (including Soil Fumigation)
Provide worker protection standard (WPS) compliance assistance, education and outreach for
growers, applicators and workers, and augment state and tribal pesticide worker safety program
efforts, including the new soil fumigation requirements.
b) Protection of Water Resources from Pesticide Exposure (including support for
implementation of the NPDES Pesticide Permits)
Page 5 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Ensure that pesticides do not adversely affect the nation's water.
c) Expansion of Pesticide Protection in Indian Country
Expand pesticide program coverage in Indian country and Alaskan Native Villages with the goal
of protecting human health and the environment by ensuring pesticides and alternatives are
available in Indian country and can be used according to label directions without causing
unreasonable risks.
d) Bed Bug Outreach/Assistance
EPA's efforts to address the national bed bug epidemic through education and outreach on
pesticide and integrated pest management control approaches, and providing support to other
federal state and local agencies to respond to infestations.
e) Endangered Species Protection
Limit potential effects from pesticide use to listed species, while at the same time not placing
undue burden on agriculture or other pesticide users.
f) Support of the Agricultural Sector
Improve the ability of the Agricultural Sector to understand, adjust to and implement new
pesticide requirements and specific national pesticide priorities designed to protect human health
and the environment from pesticides used in agriculture.
3. OPPT'S PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES
a) Reduce Lead Risks
Continue progress in reducing risks from lead-based paint and disparities in blood lead levels
between low income and non-low income children.
b) Reduce Risks from PCBs and Other Legacy Chemicals
Reduce exposure to and risks from chemicals known generally as legacy chemicals with a focus
on PCBs,. OCSPP fibers program activities have been eliminated in FY 2013.
c) Prevent Pollution
Continue to eliminate or reduce waste at the point of generation, conserve natural resources and
promote the development and use of safer, "greener" materials and products to achieve a
healthier environment and a more sustainable economy, focusing attention on chemicals being
identified as candidates for risk management action under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA).
Page 6 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
C. REGIONAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
OCSPP's Regional office program priorities for FY 2013 are:
1. OPP's CROSS-REGIONAL STRATEGIES
a) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Schools
Conduct activities to encourage public school officials at the elementary through high school
levels to adopt IPM practices as a means to decrease exposure of children to pests and
pesticidessuch as outreach, training, and technical assistance with school officials and
organizations to help schools adopt and implement IPM practices consistent with the National
School IPM program.
b) Management of State and Tribal Grants/Cooperative Agreement:
Provide oversight and support to our state and tribal partners to ensure that EPA resources are
directed to areas where they are most needed and best support the goals of the National Pesticide
Program; negotiate, implement, and manage state and tribal cooperative agreements and grants
consistent with the joint OPP/OECA FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance (FIFRA Grant
Guidance); foster prompt and accurate communication of Pesticide Program regulations,
policies, and guidance to grantees; and, provide effective technical assistance and policy support
for the grantees.
2. OPP's REGION-SPECIFIC STRA TEGIES
a) Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety (including Soil Fumigation)
Continue WPS (including soil fumigation) education, outreach and training for growers,
applicators, and workers. If selected as a regional priority, conduct at least one region-specific
project/initiative contributing to implementation/enhancement of the worker protection and/or
pesticide applicator certification field programs, or mitigation of other occupational exposure
risks. The goal of a WPS project should be enhanced protection of agricultural pesticide
workers, the goal of a Certification and Training (C&T) project should be improved competency
of certified pesticide applicators, and the goal of other occupational exposure risk projects should
be enhanced protection of those workers, including outreach on the new soil fumigant
requirements.
b) Protection of Water Resources from Pesticide Exposure (including support for
implementation of the NPDES Pesticide Permits)
Conduct work to support states and tribes evaluating pesticides to see if they are a concern to
water resources, managing pesticides of concern and demonstrating progress of pesticides in
water management strategies. Also, where routine opportunities present themselves, provide
outreach to pesticide users who may be covered by the new pesticide National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under the Clean Water Act. If selected
as a regional priority, conduct at least one region-specific project/initiative contributing to
protection of water sources from pesticide risk.
Page 7 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
c) Expansion of Pesticide Protection in Indian Country
If selected as a regional priority, conduct at least one region-specific project/initiative, which was
designed to expand pesticide program coverage and reduce pesticide risk in Indian Country and
Alaska Native Villages. Where appropriate, projects should seek to benefit multiple tribes.
Projects can include: working with tribes to develop tribal Pesticide Use Assessments; exploring
tribal interest in participating in circuit-rider programs, either by expanding existing single tribe
programs or establishing new circuit-rider programs; or, by developing pesticide outreach
materials useful to tribes.
d) Bed Bug Outreach/Assistance
Establish relationships with other federal, state, tribal and local agencies to assist them where
needed in their combined bed bug infestation responses/activities. If selected as a regional
priority, conduct at least one region-specific project/ initiative contributing to education about
prevention of, or response to, bed bug infestation, or providing technical assistance to states,
tribes, pest management professionals, local bed bug programs, environmental justice advocates,
the general public, or other stakeholders. In order to assure efficient use of resources, Regional
offices should take steps to avoid duplication of efforts in developing materials, trainings, and
meetings by consulting with the Bed Bug Clearinghouse on EPA's website (a URL will be
provided in the final NPM guidance) and by communicating with OPP and other Regional
offices (such as through OPP/Regional Bedbug Communications Workgroup).
e) Endangered Species Protection
If selected as a regional priority, conduct at least one region-specific project/initiative
contributing to implementation of the Pesticide Program Endangered Species Program and
increased co-regulator and public knowledge about the ESPP.
f) Support of the Agricultural Sector
If selected as a regional priority, conduct at least one region-specific project/initiative which will
help the Agricultural Sector understand, adjust to and implement pesticide requirements related
to pollinator protection, soil fumigation, spray drift, resistance management, transition to safer
pesticides and practices, or obtain input from the Agricultural Sector on how pesticides
scheduled for Registration Review are actually used in the field and the impacts of potential risk
mitigation approaches.
3. OPPT's PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REGIONAL STRA TEGIES
a) Reduce Lead Risks
Implement lead-based paint risk reduction education, outreach and regulatory implementation
programs; continue overseeing the Section 404(g) grant program; provide outreach for Pre-
Renovation Education Rule (406) and Disclosure Rule (1018); support the Training and
Certification Rule 402(a), in states and tribes; create opportunities for partnerships to address
lead-based paint hazards and exposure reduction; implement the Lead-Based Paint Renovation,
Page 8 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule; and coordinate implementation of Lead Program activities with
OECA's implementation of compliance assistance, monitoring and enforcement strategies.
b) Reduce Risks from PCBs and Other Legacy Chemicals
Focus on providing assistance to federal agencies, states and tribes, local governments and
school systems and others with responsibility for ensuring proper use of poly chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). If so, provide information about options for replacement and opportunities
for technical and funding assistance through Environmental Services Companies (ESCOs).
c) Prevent Pollution
Encourage cleaner production processes and technologies; promote the development and use of
safer, "greener" materials and products; and support the implementation of improved practices
such as the use of conservation techniques and the reuse of materials in lieu of their placement
into the waste stream, focusing attention on chemicals being identified as candidates for risk
management action under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The program uses the
Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) framework to promote sustainable manufacturing by
helping companies lean and green their factories and implement cost-cutting measures. In
implementing pollution prevention strategies, leverage and coordinate effectively with all related
Agency efforts to achieve a healthier environment and a more sustainable economy. Include a
focus on strengthening cross-agency collaboration to foster sustainability in sports by facilitating
EPA's green projects in the sports industry and supporting the coordination of these efforts
across EPA to minimize duplication of efforts, maximize potential synergies, leverage Agency
resources, and maximize return on investment.
D. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO PRIORITIES OR STRATEGIES FROM FY 2012
OCSPP's FY 2013 priorities for Regional offices have been updated to reflect priorities, plans
and measures identified in the FY2011-FY2015 EPA Strategic Plan and the FY 2013
President's Budget.
1. OPP
Because of the difficulty in obtaining data to support a baseline for the FY 2012 School IPM
ACS measure (number of children in public school covered by verifiable and on-going IPM
program), the ACS measure for School IPM will be updated in FY 2013 to a more activity-based
measure. In FY 2013, the School IPM measure will count the number of activities conducted
consistent with the National School IPM Plan to provide outreach, education, and/or assistance
to public school officials at the elementary through high school levels to adopt verifiable and
sustainable IPM practices. Progress on this measure should result in increased adoption of IPM
practices in public schools, grades K-12. This new measure is a non-commitment measure for
FY2013.
In addition, both the Pesticide Container/Containment Regulation Implementation priority and
the Antimicrobial Hospital Disinfectants Efficacy and Misbranding priority have been deleted
Page 9 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
from the FY 2013 OCSPP NPM Guidance, and will now be addressed under the FY 2013 OECA
NPM Guidance. This is because the regional work needed to address these program areas in FY
2013 are related inspections and enforcement, which are more appropriately addressed on the
OECA NPM Guidance. Regional offices will still be expected to continue program related
activities for these areas (education, outreach, training and technical support); however, the level
of program-related effort in the Regional offices associated with this work will be routine rather
than rising to the level of "priority" work.
In the Protection of Water Resources from Pesticide Exposure priority, we have deleted the
expectations that Regional pesticide staff will provide support to the Regional water program
staff to review and develop NPDES pesticide permits. Those permits should already be in place,
so that support will not be necessary in FY 2013.
We have also added a new pesticide priority for Support of the Agricultural Sector. The goal of
this priority will be to help the agricultural sector understand, adjust to and implement new
pesticide requirements and specific national priorities designed to protect human health and the
environment from pesticides used in agriculture. The types and focus of regional projects to
support this priority will support specific national pesticide program priorities (pollinator
protection, soil fumigation, spray drift, resistance management, and transition to safer pesticides
and practices). In addition, Regional offices may develop projects to support current or
upcoming registration review activities by collecting information on real world pesticide use or
impacts of risk mitigation approaches.
Finally, we have deleted ACS measure number 26, which was the State Grant Performance
Measure (SGPM) for the pesticide program and addressed the number of applicators certified in
each region. The data is already collected through the state and tribal agreement process and
captured in the Certification Plan and Reporting Database (CPARD). Further, the Agency no
longer requires a separate measure to capture state grant performance. Therefore, maintaining
this measure in ACS is redundant.
2. OPPT
The FY2013 President's Budget proposes a $2.44 million and a 12.5 FTE reduction in the
Chemical Risk Management program, including a reduction of $1.407 million and 8.1 FTEs in
Regional offices resources. This decrease reflects elimination of the fibers program activities
and a reduction to EPA headquarters PCBs program activities. In the fibers program, updates to
existing guidance, development of new guidance on emerging fibers hazards, and assistance to
the public and regulated community - including schools and school systems - regarding asbestos
regulations or health and safety concerns will not occur. There will be no capacity to implement
the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in the Regions. A clear message to
enable Agency personnel to appropriately address inquiries from the public and regulated
community either directly or through referral to other Agency programs will be developed.
Requests for information should be directed to EPA's asbestos website or the TSCA hotline.
Congressional inquiries for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests will continue to be
addressed through existing Agency processes. The EPA headquarters PCBs program reduction
will delay guidance on light ballasts and building caulk containing PCBs in schools, delaying the
program's ability to provide direction to school administrators and other building managers in
Page 10 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
determining how to respond to the presence of PCBs in their facilities. Regional offices will
continue to provide assistance and conduct education and outreach efforts on PCBs in schools
and other buildings. As a result, the two FY 2012 asbestos ACS measures are replaced by a new
measure (ACS measure TSCA1) tracking remaining Regional offices activities under the
Chemical Risk Management program.
In FY 2013, the Pollution Prevention (P2) program will focus attention on chemicals identified
as candidates for risk management action under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The
P2 program will also collaborate with other EPA environmental stewardship programs to provide
an on-line, one stop shop of environmental information for sports teams, venue representatives,
service providers and participants to pilot doing business differently to improve services,
leverage resources and increase sustainability opportunities for stakeholders.
E. OCSPP CONTACTS
For general comments or questions, please contact Jennifer Vernon (202-564-6573). For
program-specific questions, please contact:
Office of Pesticide Programs:
Daniel Helfgott, Field and External Affairs Division (703-308-8054)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics:
Mike Burns, Environmental Assistance Division (202-564-8273)
Page 11 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
II. CROSS AGENCY PROGRAMS, PRIORITIES, AND REQUIREMENTS
This section of the Guidance describes EPA programs, priorities, and requirements that cut
across EPA organizational lines and that involve OCSPP in some way. OCSPP either supports,
implements, or is involved in the described activities below, but the overall efforts maybe led or
managed by organizations other than OCSPP.
A. STRATEGIC PLAN
1. Goals and Objectives
OCSPP's FY 2013 NPM Guidance describes the key actions needed to accomplish the public
health and environmental goals presented in the FY 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan. The
Strategic Plan identifies the measurable environmental and human health outcomes the public
can expect over the next five years and describes how we intend to achieve those results. The
Strategic Plan represents a commitment to our core values of science, transparency and the rule
of law in managing our programs.
With the help of states, tribes and other partners, OCSPP programs in headquarters and the
Regional offices support the following:
Goal 2, Objective 1 (Protecting America's Waters) - Protect Human Health;
Goal 3, Objective 2 (Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable
Development) - Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities;
Goal 3, Objective 4 (Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable
Development) - Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian
Country;
Goal 4, Objective 1 (Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution) -
Ensure Chemical Safety; and
Goal 4, Objective 2 (Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution) -
Promote Preventing Pollution.
2. Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategies and Administrator Priorities
The FY 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan also provides a blueprint for advancing Administrator
Lisa Jackson's seven priorities for protecting human health and the environment. The Strategic
Plan incorporates the Administrator's priorities into five cross-cutting fundamental strategies
(XCFS). EPA has developed Action Plans to implement and advance each of the five XCFS.
The Action Plans are designed to promote cross-program coordination and fundamentally change
the way the Agency works to achieve our mission. Action Plans are and will be developed for
each of the Strategic Plan's fiscal years. The most recent Action Plans are available is for the
2012 fiscal year, which articulates specific measureable actions that will be undertaken across
Page 12 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
the Agency in FY 2012. FY 2012 XCFS Action Plans are available at
http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2012.html.
OCSPP is actively engaged in all five strategies. The XCFS detailed below are particularly
relevant to the work of the OCSPP headquarters and Regional office programs: Expanding the
Conversation on Environmentalism; Working for Environmental Justice and Children's Health;
and, Strengthening State, Tribal, and International Partnership.
B. EXPANDING THE CONVERSATION ON ENVIRONMENTALISM
On March 24, 2011, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe issued a memorandum in which
he affirmed his support for using the National Environmental Information Exchange Network
(Exchange Network) as the preferred means of environmental data sharing between EPA, states,
tribes, and others. Also, this memorandum affirmed the unanimous ECOS resolution calling for
full implementation of the Exchange Network, and represented a renewed joint commitment to
success of the Network.
The Environmental Information Exchange Network has provided the foundation for EPA and the
states and tribes to now move aggressively to convert from old-fashioned paper reports to
electronic reporting. To reduce burden, improve compliance, expand the information available
to the public about pollution that affects them, and improve the ability of EPA and states to
implement environmental programs, the Agency has commenced a comprehensive initiative to
convert to electronic reporting. EPA is focusing this initiative in two main areas: (1) developing
an Agency wide policy to ensure that new regulations include electronic reporting in the most
efficient way; and (2) developing and then implementing an Agency plan to convert the most
important existing paper reports to electronic, while also looking for opportunities to reduce or
streamline outdated paper reporting. Since this work is cross-cutting, EPA has established an
Agency Electronic Reporting Task Force to lead and manage this work.
The Agency invites the provision of examples to the Electronic Reporting Task Force of
experiences in moving from paper to electronic reporting and is interested in learning from the
states and tribes about their successes and challenges in converting from paper reporting to
electronic. The Agency will keep states and tribes informed about its progress in this initiative.
If a state or tribe would like to share information with the Electronic Reporting Task Force,
please contact David Hindin (OECA) and Andy Battin (OEI) for more information. More
information can be found on-line at http://www.epa.gov/exchangenetwork/.
C. STRENGTHENING STATE, TRIBAL AND INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
EPA, states and tribes fulfill critical roles in protecting and improving human health and the
environment. By law and through shared experience, EPA, states and tribes must effectively
collaborate in the planning and implementation of environmental programs and in ensuring
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The current economic challenges facing
the states and tribes are requiring the Agency to seriously consider alternate approaches to the
current levels of delivery of its environmental and public health programs. Further, the
Page 13 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Administrator has placed renewed emphasis on improving the Agency's relationships with the
states through the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan's Cross-Cutting Fundamental Strategy,
Strengthening State, Tribal and International Partnerships.
OCSPP is advancing this strategy in many ways. OPPT, OPP and the EPA regional offices
regularly seek input and feedback from tribal representatives through engagement with
individual tribes and tribal councils, OPP through the long established Tribal Pesticide Program
Council (TPPC) and OPPT through the newly established National Toxics Tribal Council
(NTTC). OCSPP has also commenced conducting formal Tribal Consultations under EPA's
recently implemented Tribal Consultation Policy. OPPT and OPP also consult regularly with
states - both individually and through consortia. OPPT hosts quarterly conference calls with
members of state associations, include the Environmental Commissioners of the States (ECOS),
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) and the
Interstate Chemicals Council (IC2). OPP meets throughout the year with the Association of
American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) and the State FIFRA Issues Research and
Evaluation Group (SFIREG), which is comprised of state, federal, tribal and association
representatives who meet to identify and discuss issues related to pesticides that affect the states.
OCSPP's international collaboration reduces the overall cost of environmental protection at home
and abroad, adds to EPA's information and knowledge base for improved decision making, and
contributes to global environmental and health outcomes. OPPT and OPP actively engage
international partners (other countries, international organizations, etc.) as they work to further
OCSPP's chemical safety and pollution prevention missions. Examples of international
engagement include participating in the development and implementation of international
agreements; collaborating with international partners in such fora as the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC),
and the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC); and working on a
bilateral basis with countries and regions to advance mutual chemicals management goals.
OCSPP programs understand that the priorities highlighted in this Guidance will require some
flexibility in order to accommodate state, tribal and local concerns on a region-by-region basis.
Accordingly, we will continue to foster innovation and re-engineer the way we work together to
establish common directions for - and ensure the success of- our programs. OCSPP developed
this Guidance in collaboration with states and tribes and other stakeholders. Themes consistently
communicated to OCSPP throughout these discussions were: 1) state and tribal programs face
critical resource constraints, forcing them to make difficult decisions on which activities they can
support (a problem further exacerbated by increasing workloads); and 2) in recognition of these
facts, states and tribes are calling for greater flexibility in the NPM Guidance to allow for
differences in state, tribal and geographical priorities.
This Guidance attempts to provide the flexibility states and tribes are seeking. The document
discusses the roles of EPA's headquarters and Regional offices, including the unique role
Regional offices play in assisting state and tribal programs in building program capacity that
support Agency and state and tribal goals and objectives.
Page 14 of53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
D. WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH
As outlined in Administrator Jackson's priorities and detailed in EPA's Cross-Cutting
Fundamental Strategies, "Working for Environmental Justice and Children's Health," children's
health and environmental justice principles are an intrinsic part of decision-making at every level
of the Agency. To this end, we have integrated children's health and environmental justice (EJ)
considerations into our rulemaking and decision-making processes and program implementation
efforts to improve children's health protection and more effectively address environmental
justice concerns.
OCSPP will continue to support and build on existing activities and accomplishments to ensure
that our policies, programs, activities and standards address disproportionate risks to children and
other vulnerable populations. Specific children's health and EJ implications are detailed in this
Guidance where appropriate. Examples of FY 2013 OCSPP Regional offices efforts in support
of this strategy include:
Continuing to target reducing disparities in blood lead levels between low-income and
non-low-income children through the Lead Risk Reduction program;
Continuing to protect children from risk posed by PCBs in caulks and light ballasts in
their schools through the Chemical Risk Management program;
Focusing the Pollution Prevention program's attention on chemicals being identified as
candidates for assessment and risk management action under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), where potential for childhood exposure and health impacts weighs
heavily in EPA's process for identifying such candidate chemicals; and
The pesticide field programs listed in this guidance like the Pesticide Worker Safety
Program, Bed Bugs, School IPM and Tribal Programs specifically address protection of
environmental justice communities and children.
1. OCSPP Program Contributions to Plan EJ 2014
To implement Administrator Jackson's environmental justice priority in particular, EPA adopted
Plan EJ 2014, its overarching environmental justice strategy.1 This four-year plan is designed as
a roadmap to help EPA integrate environmental justice into all of its programs. The plan
1 For information concerning Plan EJ 2014, please see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/plan-
ei/index.html
Page 15 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
includes five cross-Agency focus areas, tools development, and program initiatives. The five
areas are:
Incorporating Environmental Justice into Rulemaking,
Considering Environmental Justice in Permitting,
Advancing Environmental Justice through Compliance and Enforcement,
Supporting Community-Based Action Programs, and
Fostering Administration-Wide Action on Environmental Justice.
OCSPP is making significant contributions to Plan EJ 2014, including co-leading the
Incorporating Environmental Justice into Rulemaking focus area, under which EPA is in FY
2013 finalizing and implementing guidance for Agency rule writers on considering
environmental justice in EPA's Action Development Process (issued as Interim Final in July,
2010), developing draft technical guidance on conducting environmental justice analyses and
establishing an on-going monitoring mechanism to advance continuous learning, promote
consistency and ensure adherence to such guidance.
OCSPP will also rely on the use of new EJ tools and guidance as they continue to come online.
EJ Screen and EJ Legal Tools are already available. These tools will help OCSPP identify
communities of concern and assess ways in which, pursuant to our regulatory authority, we can
help improve their health and environment.
In addition, OCSPP is undertaking the Worker Safety Initiative to achieve the goals of Plan EJ
2014. The Pesticide Worker Safety program is critical to ensuring agricultural farm workers are
protected from occupational pesticide hazards, and a key component of EPA's and OPP's EJ
activities. EPA's Worker Protection Standards (WPS) provides important regulatory protections
for this population by requiring several safeguards such as training on recognition of pesticide
hazards, protection from pesticide exposure, and emergency assistance in the event of a pesticide
exposure or injury. Outreach to serve this community includes offering safety information and
training, in a manner accessible to workerssuch as through multilingual and low-literacy
materials. This initiative also includes enhancement of the Worker Protection and Certification
rules, implementation of the new soil fumigation requirements, and increased emphasis in risk
assessments in the pesticide registration review program to understand and address pesticide
risks to EJ populations.
2. Title VI
It is a priority of the Agency to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/t61awrg.htm. This statute prohibits discrimination based
on race, color, and national origin, including limited English proficiency (LEP), by entities
receiving Federal financial assistance.
As required by implementing EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, EPA applicants must
complete EPA Form 4700-4 to demonstrate compliance with Title VI and other non
Page 16 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
discrimination statutes and regulations, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/adobe/4700-
4 sec.pdf. The regulations also impose specific obligations on grant recipients, including
providing compliance information, establishing grievance procedures, designating a Title
VI Coordinator, and providing notices of non-discrimination,
http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/40p0007.pdf
Title VI requires EPA financial assistance recipients to provide meaningful access to LEP
individuals. To implement that requirement, and consistent with Executive Order 13166,
http://www.epa.gov/cvilrights/docs/eol3166.pdf the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued
guidance to recipients entitled, "Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency
Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin
Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004 register&docid=fr25jn04-79.pdf
OCR also published a Title VI Public Involvement Guidance for EPA Assistance
Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs,
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-2691.pdf
In coordination with the grants management community, OARM will work with OCR
and the Office of General Counsel to develop and implement appropriate grant
conditions, training programs and monitoring strategies to help achieve compliance with
Title VI and implementing regulations and guidance.
All recipients of EPA financial assistance have an affirmative obligation to implement
effective Title VI compliance programs and ensure that their actions do not involve
discriminatory treatment and do not have discriminatory effects even when facially
neutral. Recipients should be prepared to demonstrate that such compliance programs
exist and are being implemented or to otherwise demonstrate how they are meeting their
Title VI obligations.
E. SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability combines sound environmental practices, economic viability, and social
responsibility. Working for environmental justice and ensuring compliance with Title VI are
important components of the Sustainability equation. OCSPP collaborates with other programs
and the Regional Offices to maximize the effectiveness on our ongoing Sustainability efforts.
This approach reflects the need to look at our environmental challenges as "One EPA" with a
whole-systems approach, leveraging cross-program efforts and sharing tools and information
among programs to provide stakeholders with a unified approach to protecting human health and
the environment.
To that end, EPA's Sustainability efforts will continue to systematically integrate and promote
the prevention of pollution, and Sustainability will serve as a guiding principle for collaboration
between EPA programs in the alignment of priorities and measures of success. Specifically,
OCSPP will continue to incorporate sustainable approaches in its work in collaboration with
OSWER on:
Page 17 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Pollution Prevention (P2), which encourages source reduction, advances the development
of safer, "greener" materials and products, and promotes the implementation of improved
practices such as the sustainable use of materials. Environmental and economic benefits
obtained through pollution prevention include reduced use of hazardous and non-
hazardous materials, water and energy, reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses and
reduced costs of operations for businesses, governments and other institutions. P2
contributes to economic sustainability through increased profit, employment and
community vitality. One key element of EPA's pollution prevention strategy is advancing
green chemistry which provides a framework for sustainability by designing chemicals
and chemical processes that reduce or eliminate chemical hazards.
Sustainable Materials Management (SMM), which is an approach to reduce negative
environmental and societal impacts across the life cycle of materials from resource
extraction, manufacturing, use, reuse, recycling and disposal. Efficiencies gained in
SMM approaches can result in less energy used, more efficient use of materials, more
efficient movement of goods and services, conservation of water and reduced volume and
toxicity of waste.
OCSPP and OSWER will continue to pursue alignment in this work and other ongoing EPA
sustainability approaches, and will adopt ACS commitments that will capture the progress
achieved in those areas. In particular, opportunities presently exist to integrate these pollution
prevention approaches into sector-based initiatives such as manufacturing, health care,
hospitality, sporting and other venues, groceries, colleges and universities and other sectors
considered to be a priority. These efforts include reducing exposure from recycling processes,
OSWER's and OCSPP's collaboration on programs and standards across the lifecycle of
electronics products, and the Agency-wide effort to promote sustainable practices in the design
and operation of sports venues and enterprises.
F. BETTER SERVING COMMUNITIES
In FY 2013, EPA will institutionalize its commitment to support communities both through the
resources EPA offers and the means by which we coordinate among programs. Since March
2010, when Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe convened a multi-region, multi-program
effort, led by Office of Policy, to steer the Agency towards using communities as one of the
Agency's "organizing principles," significant progress has been made. For example, a subset of
27 "community-based programs" have been identified that, while not exhaustive, illustrate the
investment the agency has made across offices in direct assistance to communities. Additionally,
geomapping capabilities were completed in March 2012 to help the Agency identify and track
where EPA is working in communities through grants and technical assistance. The geomapping
has the potential to better coordinate Headquarters and regional efforts and improve the ability to
identify potential gaps in service to communities. Finally, new grants policy guidance went into
effect in March 31, 2012, establishing a 'OneEPA' approach to coordinating and implementing
community-based grant programs, including streamlining grants processes consistent with EPA's
fiduciary responsibilities and providing useful grants information to communities.
Page 18 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
In implementing EPA's long-term goals for an improved environment and better public health in
communities, regions should look for additional opportunities in which their core program
activities can help the Agency achieve the following intermediate outcomes: 1) Provide the right
information about EPA programs to the right people at the right time; 2) Facilitate communities'
access to EPA resources; 3) Increase the capacity of communities, including those that that are
underserved and overburdened, to protect their health and the environment; 4) Enhance effective
internal coordination among all major EPA community-based programs; 5) Improve leveraging
of EPA funding by EPA programs; 6) Improve leveraging of partnerships with public and private
sector entities; and 7) Strengthen EPA staff capacity to do community-based work.
In particular in FY13, regions are asked to:
Strengthen involvement and increase investment in one or more of the Agency's 27
programs that comprise the Community-Based Coordination Network. (Contact: John
Foster, Office of Sustainable Communities, 202-566-2870 orfoster.john@epa.gov)
Support ongoing inter-agency partnerships that align resources or activities in
communities (e.g. the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, the HUD-
DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities, the Urban Waters partnership and
others).
Adhere to OGD's Community-Based Grants Policy, including implementing identified
best practices for streamlining competitions, considering combining competitions, and
implementing protocols to geo-code projects for inclusion in Agency-wide mapping.
(http://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policy/gpi 12 02 community based grants 03 02 12.pdf)
Work with OGD and OEJ to post competition schedules and other grant information.
(http://www.epa.gov/ogd/trammg/resources for communities/community grants table.h
tm)
Utilize OSWER's Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC) contract to
provide technical assistance for communities that find it difficult to apply for and manage
grants. (Contact: Howard Corcoran, OARM, 202-564-1903 or
corcoran. howard@epa.gov)
G. OPPORTUNITIES TO GAIN EFFICIENCY
As noted in OMB Circular No. A-123, "Management's Responsibility for Internal Control," the
first objective of internal controls is to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of operations. In
support of the Administrator's priority to improve EPA's internal operations, OCSPP and
Regional offices are continually seeking more efficient and pragmatic ways to achieve our goals
and objectives. EPA's annual NPM Guidance sets forth program priorities and key actions for
the upcoming year, and therefore serve as an important internal control for Agency
programmatic operations.
Page 19 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
The NPM Guidance reflects input from the Regional offices on program risks and vulnerabilities,
and actions to reduce these risks. For example, for several years OCSPP has employed a GPRA
Annual Performance Measure and two Annual Commitment System (ACS) measures to target
improved and maintained efficiency in the Lead Risk Reduction program's processing of lead
abatement worker certification applications in order to meet customer expectations in meeting
the time frames specified in the application process. Achieving the ambitious targets for these
measures, that are part of OCSPP's internal controls strategy, has required concerted and
continuing attention from program managers at EPA headquarters and in the Regional offices
and has resulted in genuine improvements in program performance that have directly benefited
the program's customers.
H. STATE GRANT WORKPLANS AND PROGRESS REPORTS
EPA continues to work with states, tribes and other grant recipients to better align State Grant
Workplan goals and measures outlined in EPA's national goals and performance measures.
These improvements have enhanced the Agency's ability to demonstrate grant results to the
Office of Management and Budget, Congress and the public. It is important that EPA and the
states and tribes build on these efforts to ensure that grant Workplans meet the basic
requirements necessary to ensure that our grants deliver their intended results and to facilitate the
integration of those results into the Agency's strategic and annual planning, budgeting, and
accountability processes. Additional information on grants improvements and the grants
management process can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ogd.
In FY 2013, EPA remains committed to strengthening our oversight and reporting of results from
state grants, by linking state grant work plan commitments to EPA's Strategic Plan, and
enhancing transparency and accountability. EPA and the states will continue working in FY
2013 to achieve this through two related efforts:
1. Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 11-03
State Grant Workplans and Progress Reports were developed by the State Grant Workplan
Workgroup, composed of EPA and state grant practitioners. The GPI will go into effect for
awards made on or after October 1, 2012. It was issued well in advance of the effective date to
allow Regional offices and states sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements. Affected
National Program Managers and Regional offices should ensure that the GPI is incorporated in
upcoming FY 2013 Workplan negotiations, and provide appropriate outreach to state recipients.
In addition, OGD will work with the Regional offices on a case-by-case basis to address any
implementation challenges. Please contact Jennifer Bogus in OGD at 202-564-5294 should you
have questions related to the GPI. Please contact the program office for specific program
implementation questions. The OCSPP's program contacts are listed in the last section of the
Executive Summary in this Guidance.
2. State Grant Performance Measures
Page 20 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
OCSPP's State Grant Performance Measure (SGPM) in ACS for FY 2013 reporting is listed in
Appendix A. Although the use of the template to capture results for these measures is not
required, reporting on the results remains the responsibility of the Regional offices and states.
I. ENHANCED COLLABORATION WITH OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
OCSPP and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) have been working
to enhance collaboration between the two Offices. Although each Office has a distinct mission,
they are mutually reinforcing with each program bringing unique tools and expertise to bear on
the common challenge of protecting the public and environment from chemical risks. Important
aspects of this cooperative effort include better aligning programs' priorities for Regional
offices, states, and tribes, pursuing joint work and exchanging timely and meaningful
information on case development. This coordinated approach will enhance overall program
efficiency and accelerate progress toward achievement of our common strategic objectives.
J. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND ALIGNMENT
OCSPP's suite of Annual Commitment System (ACS) performance measures, presented in
Appendix A, has been refined to align with EPA's revised long-term goals and strategic
measures presented in the FY 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan and the in EPA's FY 2013 Annual
Plan. Attachment B identifies any significant changes in our FY 2013 priorities, strategies, and
measures since the FY 2012 NPM Guidance. Attachment C provides a summary of our
responses to all the comments received during the comment period.
The FY 2013 performance commitments in ACS will remain as draft until final performance
agreements are reached in October 2012. Additional information on the EPA performance
measures, planning and budgeting can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/index.htm.
More information on the Agency's NPM Guidance development process, public comment
process and other NPM Guidances to the Regional offices can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2013.html.
Page 21 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
III. OCSPP PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The OCSPP National Program Manager Guidance for FY 2013 represents participatory dialogue
with EPA regional offices, and incorporated input from states, tribes and other concerned
stakeholders. This Guidance was also developed with continued and improved coordination with
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to align program and
enforcement priorities, ensure that our work is mutually supportive and continue to strengthen
and focus our joint strategic planning. The Guidance identifies our FY 2013 program priorities
for Regional offices, summarizes the FY 2013 annual performance plans for each of the national
programs managed by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), details the specific contributions needed from the Regional
offices in meeting the goals and objectives and identifies the Annual Commitment System
performance measures that will be used to hold Regional office programs accountable for
contributing to those goals and objectives.
OPP's core work involves registering pesticides, establishing pesticide tolerances and
periodically reviewing existing pesticide registrations. OPP regulates pesticide use through
activities such as promulgating rules, approving pesticide labels and labeling, providing guidance
and technical assistance and working with state/local/federal officials on pesticide enforcement/
compliance issues. OPP priorities include pesticide worker safety, protection of water sources
from pesticide contamination, endangered species protection, ensuring the efficacy of
antimicrobial pesticides and implementation of the new soil fumigation requirements. Some
priorities are identified in this Guidance for Regional office action; while others are
Headquarters focused but may require Regional office engagement with stakeholders.
OPPT ensures the safety of new chemicals entering and existing chemicals already in use in U.S.
commerce, promotes the development and use of safer chemicals and technologies, promotes
pollution prevention as the guiding principle for controlling pollution, reduces risks from lead-
based paint and reduces other legacy chemical risks resulting from prior use and management
practices. OPPT's long-term strategies and measures are found in Goal 4 of the FY 2011 - 2015
EPA Strategic Plan. As identified in the guidance that follows, EPA's regional offices make
vital contributions to several of those strategies: reducing risks from lead-based paint nationally
and in targeted vulnerable populations; reducing risks from PCBs and asbestos; and promoting
pollution prevention as the strategy of first choice in reducing environmental risks and pursuing
sustainability.
Page 22 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
IV. OPP REGIONAL OFFICE PROGRAM PRIORITIES
An effective National Pesticide Programwith contributions from OPP, Regional offices, EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), states and tribesensures the
protection of human health and the environment from potential risks associated with pesticide
use. Ensuring that OPP's risk mitigation decisions result in the intended protections requires a
strong field program and Regional offices play a key role in this effort. Pesticide Program field
activities include educating end users on proper use, storage, and disposal of pesticides, ensuring
proper implementation of pesticide rules and regulations, and helping states/tribes develop and
execute pesticide programs.
Regional offices are crucial to ensuring the flow of information between EPA, states and tribes
necessary for effective risk mitigation. They provide information on pesticide regulatory actions,
guidance, and policies to states and tribes for dissemination to end users, and relay information
from states and tribes to OPP to verify the effectiveness of existing risk mitigation measures and
inform future measures. Regional offices also support and strengthen state and tribal pesticide
programs by negotiating and providing oversight of cooperative agreements and grants, and
providing technical assistance to these important partners.
To add flexibility, the pesticides portion of the FY 2013 NPM Guidance is structured in two
sections. The first section contains two "Cross-Regional Priorities" activities that require
participation from all Regional offices. These priorities are 1) Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) in Schools, and 2) Strengthening State and Tribal Partnerships through the Continued
Effective Management of State and Tribal Grants/Cooperative Agreements. The second section
in particular contains several activities which support one or more Strategic Plan objectives
and/or XCFS and OPP goals. Additionally, these activities support XCFS "Strengthening State,
Tribal and International Partnerships and Programs." Regional offices will select at least two
priorities from the second section for special focus and will conduct at least one special project in
each area selected. This approach enables Regional offices to select priority areas which best
address the needs of their states, tribes and vulnerable populations, and will likely result in the
greatest reduction of potential pesticide risk in their area of the country. For example, soil
fumigation may pose greater potential risk in the West, worker protection may be the most
pressing issue in the South, strengthening tribal programs may be a priority in the Southwest, and
concerns with bed bug outreach and assistance may be the most pressing concern in the upper
Mid-west and Northeast.
This approach recognizes that while an activity might be a priority for the National Program, the
degree to which that activity would be a priority in a particular Region may vary. Through this
approach, OPP believes all priority issues will be addressed, and are likely to receive greater
attention in areas of the country where the issue poses the greatest potential risk. It is important
to note that even in areas not identified as cross-regional priorities, or not selected as a specific
regional priority, Regional offices are expected to maintain a basic level of technical assistance
and support of state and tribal work and information requests from the public.
Page 23 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
A. OPP CROSS-REGIONAL PRIORITIES
Two priority activities have been identified as "Cross-Regional" priorities, where each Region
must play a direct role in implementation. The first of these, "IPM in Schools," supports EPA's
strategic plan strategy of "Working for Environmental Justice and Children's Health," and the
strategic plan goal of "Ensuring Chemical Safety." OPP continues to focus on protecting
children and this initiative will reduce the levels of exposure of children to pests and pesticides.
The second cross-regional priority is "Strengthening State and Tribal Partnerships through the
Continued Effective Management of State and Tribal Grants/Cooperative Agreements." This
priority supports EPA's strategic plan strategy of "Strengthening State, Tribal, and International
Partnerships" and is a core responsibility of Regional offices.
1. School IPM
a) Program Description
EPA recognizes that pest control and pesticide use in areas where children are present poses
special challenges and concerns. Additionally, our Nation's children spend a considerable
amount of their time in schools, as do teachers and school support staff. The National Center for
Education Statistics estimates that in the fall of 2010, nearly 49.4 million students attended
public elementary and secondary schools, with enrollment rates steadily increasing every year.
With this in mind, EPA is pursuing a program to encourage school officials to adopt integrated
pest management (IPM) practices as a means to reduce exposure to, and risk from pests and
pesticides in schools and on school grounds. The initial focus of this program will be public
schools at the elementary through secondary levels. The goal of this activity is to decrease
exposure of children in public schools (grades K-12) to pests and pesticides through increased
adoption of verifiable and on-going IPM programs in public schools at the elementary through
high school levels.
b) Consistent with the National School IPM Program, Proposed Principal Activities
for the Regional Offices May Include:
Conducting outreach, training, and technical assistance with school officials and
organizations to help schools adopt and implement IPM practices consistent with the
National School IPM program.
Conducting outreach, training and technical assistance to pest management professionals
who contract with schools on School IPM techniques.
Disseminating School IPM outreach materials and tools developed or provided by the
National School IPM Center of Expertise.
Coordinating with other regional programs that target schools.
Partnering with other stakeholders implementing IPM in Schools initiatives.
Page 24 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Sponsoring and/or supporting school IPM events.
Issuing regional grants to develop and implement sustainable school IPM programs.
Supporting Headquarters with the administration of national school IPM grants.
c) Proposed Regional ACS Measure
ACS
Codes
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Comments
IPM2
Number of activities conducted
consistent with the National School
IPM Plan to provide outreach,
education, and/or assistance to public
school officials at the elementary
through high school levels to adopt
verifiable and sustainable IPM
practices.
Activities
Non-Commitment Measure
Note: Regional offices must
provide a brief description and
the number of each type of
activity that will be conducted in
their Region in the comment
field.
d) Definitions and Clarification of Measures
This new measure is a non-commitment measure for FY 2013.
This new School IPM measure will count the number of activities conducted consistent
with the National School IPM Plan to provide outreach, education, and/or assistance to
public school officials at the elementary through high school levels to adopt verifiable
and sustainable IPM practices.
Activities are defined as substantial increments of work with one or more internal or
external stakeholder(s) or development of program capacity such as databases or
educational resources to advance IPM in schools. In order to keep a wide range of
activities somewhat comparable, each reported activity should generally include 1)
preparation, 2) substantive participation, and 3) follow-up actions as needed.
2. Strengthening State/Tribal Partnerships through Continued Effective Management
Grants/Cooperative Agreements
a) Program Description
Ensuring pesticide regulatory decisions achieve intended protections requires that regulatory
authorities at the state and local level (a) understand those decisions, (b) possess tools to educate
pesticide users about the impact of decisions, and (c) be able to investigate and take action when
decisions are not properly implemented. Regional offices are responsible for negotiating,
Page 25 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
implementing, and managing state and tribal cooperative agreements and grants consistent with
the joint OPP/OECA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Cooperative
Agreement Guidance (FIFRA grant guidance). Pesticide Program Cooperative Agreements
ensure state and tribal activities support OPP's goals. EPA grants provide resources to carry out
many of the activities required in the Cooperative Agreements. Regional offices provide
oversight to guarantee resources are directed to areas where they are most needed, and that states
are conducting meaningful work in priority areas. Regional offices are uniquely positioned to
provide this oversight, given their proximity and working relationships with states and tribes.
b) Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices
Negotiating state and tribal cooperative agreements and workplans consistent with the
FIFRA grant guidance.
Issuing grant funds to states and tribes in a timely manner once they become available
and/or consistent with the start of the cooperative agreement funding period (unless
another timeframe is negotiated with the grantee).
Ensuring end-of-year reporting consistent with the mechanisms and timeframes listed in
the FIFRA grant guidance.
Fostering prompt, accurate communication of Pesticide Program regulations, policies,
and guidance to grantees.
Providing effective technical assistance and policy support for the grantees.
c) Examples of Effective Regional Grant Oversight for Pesticide Program Areas
Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety (including Soil Fumigation)
Encourage states, tribes, and other program stakeholders to participate in the regulatory
development process and contribute information/feedback to EPA as appropriate.
Prompt states/tribes to evaluate and adopt Certification and Training Assessment Group
(CTAG) recommendations and adopt them as appropriate - including recommendations
for: improving recertification programs, adopting the national core manual and exam,
and considering minimum age requirements for certification of applicators. After
issuance of CTAG recommendations, Regional offices should work with states/tribes to
evaluate their appropriateness and encourage implementation. Updated information on
CTAG can be found at http://pep.wsu.edu/ctag/.
Promote state/tribal use of national worker safety program materials such as the national
core manual and exam, national aerial category materials, WPS train-the-trainer
materials, and other products, to help reduce program costs and promote national
program consistency. Regional offices should work with states/tribes to identify barriers
to adopting national program materials and discuss ways to address any potential
problems.
Page 26 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Work with states/tribes to support and inform worker safety measures.
Provide education and outreach to states/tribes and agricultural and commercial pesticide
handling establishments on new risk mitigation labeling requirements being implemented
for the soil fumigants chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium, potassium, and methyl
bromide.
Use OPP-developed occupational safety materials to aid education and outreach efforts,
such as fact sheets, standard presentations, inspector checklists, and Q&As when routine
and appropriate opportunities present themselves, such as meetings with state or tribal co-
regulators (e.g., workplan negotiations, mid or end-of-year evaluations, pre-State FIFRA
Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Meetings, regional tribal meetings), site
visits, grower meetings, and applicator programs.
Protection of Water Resources from Pesticide Exposure
Support state and tribal efforts to identify and evaluate pesticides of interest which have
the potential to appear in ground or surface water to see whether a human health or
environmental reference point is likely to be approached or exceeded in localized areas of
a state or tribe .
Assist state/tribal pesticide and water quality management agencies to develop programs
to manage pesticides of concern (derived from pesticides of interest evaluations; i.e.,
those that have a high potential to threaten water quality standards).
Support EPA's pesticide registration review process by collecting and submitting state
water quality monitoring data, including data on CWA §303(d) listed waters due to
pesticide impairments, as described in Cooperative Agreement Guidance.
d) Proposed Regional ACS Measures
ACS
Codes
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Comments
CORE
Percent of overall pesticide program
"core" cooperative agreement activities
that are included in grantee workplans
and completed consistent with the
pesticide program portion of the
FIFRA Grant Guidance.
Percent
completed
Commitment target is 100%. *
Note: Percent of pesticide
program core activities
completed by grantee as
compared to the total required
by pesticide program portion of
the FIFRA grant guidance.
Page 2 7 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
e) Definitions and Clarification of Measure
Since end-of-year reports for these cooperative agreements are not due to OPP from the
regions until February 28, data for this ACS measure will not be available at the end of
the fiscal year for reporting into ACS. When regions report their ACS measures at the
end of the fiscal year, they may indicate in the comment field for this measure that this
data will not be available until February/March and will be reported at that time.
Where core activities are not completed, they can be removed from the total required
provided a reasonable rationale for not completing the core activity is documented (e.g.,
unexpected loss of staffer unplanned crises during the project period).
This measure is intended to show that Regional offices include required core pesticide
program activities in grantee workplans and conduct the oversight and support needed to
help grantees successfully complete those activities. This measure focuses on core
activities since they are required by the FIFRA Grant Guidance and are essential to
maintaining a baseline operation of a program area, achieving environmental results, and
helping support national performance measures (including providing data related to those
measures). While core activities are required to appear in cooperative agreements, the
level of effort and resources devoted may be negotiated depending on specific needs and
priorities of states and tribes.
This measure also recognizes there may be legitimate unanticipated reasons, such as
unexpected loss of staffer technical expertise or unforeseen emergencies, which may
prevent grantees from completing core workplan requirements. Under these
circumstances, Regional offices may agree to temporarily modify core activities
originally included in the workplan. Core activities modified or not completed due to
legitimate unanticipated reasons can be removed from the total required if a reasonable
rationale is documented (e.g., unexpected loss of staff or unplanned crises during the
project period).
B. OPP REGION-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES
(Minimum of Two Areas Per Region)
Activities in this section support one or more of EPA's FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan goals and
Strategies. These areas were selected because there is a significant investment of EPA
headquarters' resources and a clear potential for Regional office involvement. Unlike the
previous section, not every Region will be required to conduct the activities described in each
program area. Regional offices will have the flexibility to focus on areas that will have the
greatest impact on reducing pesticide risk in their states and tribal lands. This approach
recognizes the critical resource constraints faced by states and tribes, and that geographic and
regional differences impact pesticide use and regulatory needs. Regional offices must use the
flexibility in this guidance to work with states and tribes to focus on areas which best meet local
Page 28 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
objectives, but which also contribute to Agency goals. It is the intention that even while an issue
is not currently a priority in a Region, work conducted under this guidance might benefit other
Regional offices should the issue become a higher local priority in the future. For example, the
pesticide endangered species program is currently more visible in Region 10 due to legal activity
involving pesticide use in the Northwest, but may become more important in other Regional
offices in the near future.
It is important to note that while not every Regional office is required to conduct a "project" in
each program area, regional activities will likely still be needed in program areas not selected as
a priority in order to oversee and support cooperative agreements, FIFRA grant guidance,
statutory and regulatory requirements, or respond to public inquiries. In addition, there will also
be work to support other pesticide program areas and issues, such as the Antimicrobial Testing
Program (ATP) and Container/Containment Rule implementation; however, the level of effort
associated with program related work in these areas (e.g., technical assistance and outreach) will
be more routine in nature rather than rising to the level of "priority" work, or regional support
may be more related to enforcement activities covered in the OECA NPM Guidance.
Additionally, in order to maintain Pesticide Program National performance measures, Regional
offices will be required to report on all the Cross-Regional ACS measures listed at the end of
this section regardless of which "Regional Specific Priority Areas to Strengthen State and Tribal
Partnerships and Programs" are selected.
1. Guidelines for Regional-Specific Priority Areas to Strengthen State and Tribal
Partnerships and Programs
Regional offices must conduct a project in at least two of the following priority areas listed
below, and must ensure that they propose substantive projects for each priority area selected.
Specific priority areas to choose from are:
(1) Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety (including Soil Fumigation);
(2) Protection of Water Resources from Pesticide Exposure (including support for
implementation of the NPDES Pesticide Permits);
(3) Expansion of Pesticide Protection in Indian Country;
(4) Bed Bug Outreach/Assistance;
(5) Endangered Species Protection; and
(6) Support of the Agricultural Sector.
Several guidelines will apply to the selection of the substantive projects:
Each Region must conduct projects in at least two of the priority areas in this section.
(Regional offices should report their selection of program areas in the comment field for
the ACS measure RSP1, entitled "Number of Region-specific projects or initiatives
Page 29 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
contributing to the implementation and enhancement of the region-specific priority
areas.")
Projects must be designed to enhance the stated goals of the program area selected by the
Region and show meaningful results.
Projects may entail outreach, education, training, stakeholder coordination, program
evaluation, state or tribal program capacity building and support, or other similar
project/initiatives that may lead to program improvement.
Proposals for projects should include a clear statement of what work will be done, what
the project hopes to accomplish, and how the project will support the goals of the
program areas.
Regional offices are encouraged to set ambitious goals that result in true protections.
To help ensure robust projects, OPP and the Regional offices will review and discuss
proposed projects prior to initiating work.
Projects may be designed to be completed in one to three years. Multi-year projects
should have measurable milestones for each year of the project.
Projects (or one phase of a multi-year project) must be completed by the end of the fiscal
year. Regional offices must submit project reports to OPP within 30 days of the end of
the federal fiscal year.
The results of each project will be reviewed by OPP and Regional offices at the end of
the fiscal year and discussed on a conference call or meeting so that innovations and
lessons learned may be shared across the Regional offices and pesticide program.
Project results will be compiled for National Pesticide Program Accomplishment reports.
2. Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety (Including Soil Fumigation)
a) Program Description
Effective implementation of EPA's occupational safety programs is one of OPP's highest
priorities, and a key component of OPP's strategy to ensure the safety of pesticide chemicals,
prevent pollution and advance environmental justice and children's health. The Pesticide
Worker Safety program consists of two important field programs and several key initiatives that
are critical to the protection of human health and the environment through mitigation of
occupational pesticide risks and risks occurring from pesticide applications. These programs
include OPP's agricultural worker protection program, the applicator certification program, the
outreach to health care providers initiative, and several additional initiatives and partner projects
that help promote pesticide safety and prevent or reduce occupational pesticide exposure and
incidents.
Page 30 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Addressing occupation risk relies on Regional offices collaborating with states/tribes, other
federal agencies, industry groups, trade organizations, advocacy groups, community-based
organizations, the regulated community and other program stakeholders in order to reduce the
occurrence of pesticide related incidents in pesticide workers. Reducing risk is accomplished
through a number of mechanisms including proposing modifications, improvements and
enhancements to the worker protection standard and certification and training requirements.
Regional offices provide assistance by coordinating with states/tribes to ensure the regulated
community is fully informed about requirements in worker safety and certification and training
regulations and that appropriate mechanisms exist and are used to ensure compliance with
requirements. Regional offices also play a key role in supporting outreach and education
programs, supporting pesticide safety training programs, establishing community-based grant
programs, providing outreach to health care providers that treat pesticide-related illnesses, and
employing other innovative approaches to promote pesticide worker safety.
An issue that may be considered under this program area is implementation of the soil
fumigation risk mitigation as found in the Amended Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs)
for soil fumigant pesticides, and the registration actions for iodomethane and dimethyl disulfide.
In FY 2013, it will be a priority to provide education and outreach to states/tribes and affected
agricultural and commercial pesticide handling establishments about new risk mitigation labeling
requirements being implemented for the soil fumigants chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium,
potassium, methyl bromide, iodomethan and dimethyl disulfide. The RED decisions and
registration actions for these pesticides call for new risk mitigation measures for fumigant
handlers and post-application workers, as well as protections for bystanders. EPA expects
fumigant labels implementing risk mitigation measures will begin to appear in the field in 2012
and 2013. Ensuring state/tribal officials and fumigant users understand the new label
requirements is an important component of the risk mitigation.
In addition to worker safety program and soil fumigation activities, Regional offices may include
activities that contribute to the protection of others who may be exposed to pesticides through
their occupations. This may include persons who apply pesticides to lawns and gardens or to
structures including schools and office buildings or private residences.
b) Environmental Justice (EJ)
This Worker Safety NPM priority area is part of the Pesticide Program's overall work to support
the Agency's EJ Plan 2014, which also includes: enhancement of the Worker Protection and
Certification rules, implementation of the new soil fumigation requirements, and increased
emphasis in risk assessments in the pesticide registration review program to understand and
address pesticide risks to EJ populations.
The Pesticide Worker Safety program is critical to assuring that agricultural farmworkers are
protected from occupational pesticide hazards, and it is also a key component of EPA's and
OPP's EJ activities within the pesticide program. According to the most recent findings of the
National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), it is estimated that there are nearly 2 million
migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United States, which represent some of the most
economically disadvantaged people in the U.S. According to the NAWS report, thirty percent of
Page 31 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
all farm workers had total family incomes that were below the poverty guidelines. Farmworker
families have potentially higher levels of pesticide exposure than non-farmworker families
through the transfer of pesticide residues from a worker returning from the fields, and the
proximity of their housing to treated areas.
Farmworkers provide an important labor service to agriculture, and the abundant and affordable
U.S. food supply benefits greatly from the labor they provide. It is important to protect this
population from occupational pesticide hazards to ensure their safety in the workplace and
viability as a community. EPA's Worker Protection Standards (WPS) provides important
regulatory protections for this population by requiring several safeguards such as training on
recognition of pesticide hazards, protection from pesticide exposure, and emergency assistance
in the event of a pesticide exposure or injury. Outreach to serve this community includes
offering safety information and training in a manner accessible to workers, such as through
multilingual and low-literacy materials.
c) Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices Selecting this Priority Area
Regional offices emphasizing this area must conduct at least one Region-specific
project/initiative contributing to implementation/enhancement of the worker protection and/or
pesticide applicator certification field programs, or mitigation of other occupational exposure
risks. The goal of a WPS project should be enhanced protection of agricultural pesticide
workers, the goal of a C&T project should be improved competency of certified pesticide
applicators, and the goal of other occupational exposure risk projects should be enhanced
protection of those workers, including outreach on the new soil fumigant requirements.
Consistent with the Agency's initiatives on Environmental Justice, region-specific
projects/initiatives on in this area should have particular emphasis on addressing EJ concerns and
incorporate community engagement where feasible.
EPA is nearing completion of revisions to the worker protection standard and pesticide
applicator certification regulations (40 CFR Parts 170 and 171), and expects publishing proposed
rule revisions in the spring of 2012. Headquarters will conduct a variety of efforts and activities
related to these revisions, with regional participation, e.g. webinars and other outreach activities.
Regional offices should stay aware of regulatory development activities and communicate with
states, tribes, and other stakeholders about the status of the process, providing information about
the process as needed when it is updated and made available.
3. Protection of Water Sources from Pesticide Exposure
a) Program Description
To ensure pesticides do not adversely affect the nation's water resources, EPA will support states
and tribes in conducting a program to: 1) evaluate pesticide risks to local water resources, 2) take
actions to reduce or prevent pesticide contamination of water resources over time, where
potential pesticide risks are identified, and 3) establish mechanisms to demonstrate the progress
of management strategies designed to address water quality concerns caused by pesticide use.
Page 32 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
EPA, states, and tribes will investigate and respond to pesticide water contamination incidents,
especially where water quality standards or other reference points are threatened or exceeded.
OPP, EPA's Office of Water, Regional offices, states and tribes will share information and
collaborate to identify and manage the risk of pesticide use to water resources. OPP will also use
state and tribal water monitoring data in the pesticide registration and registration review
process.
For FY 2013, Pesticide regional offices may be called upon to support implementation of
Pesticide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under the
Clean Water Act. As of October 2011 people who apply pesticide products to: a) control
mosquitoes and other aquatic insect species, b) control aquatic weeds or algae, c) wide-area pest
control and control of vegetation along ditchbanks, and d) control aquatic animal pests, are
required to operate under an NPDES permit. Within each Region, Water Program staff will have
the lead on this issue but may benefit from guidance, coordination, or direct assistance from
Pesticide Program Regional staff.
Regional Pesticide Programs should offer support in the following areas:
Where routine opportunities present themselves, provide outreach to potential permittees
in states, tribal areas, and federal facilities that will be covered under the federal Pesticide
General Permit (PGP).
Where routine opportunities present themselves, provide outreach to potential permittees
in states with delegated NPDES authority.
To assist in outreach efforts, Regional Pesticide Program staff will be provided outreach
materials from EPA's Office of Water and/or Regional water programs. In addition, to ensure
effective education of the regulated community, steps should be taken to coordinate outreach
opportunities with Regional Water Program staff, Regional Pesticide Program staff, state lead
water agency staff, and state lead pesticide agency staff.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), conditions for pesticide
use can include requirements to protect water resources. EPA also provides funding to states and
tribes to protect water resources from pesticides. Under cooperative agreements managed by
EPA regional offices, states and tribes are asked to evaluate pesticides, which may threaten water
quality standards or other appropriate reference points, and to place pesticides identified as a
concern under active management to reduce concentrations in the environment that would
otherwise result in undue exposure and risk. This evaluation process allows states and tribes to
focus resources at the local level to manage the greatest risk to their water quality.
Regional work in this area should support state and tribal efforts to ensure the identification and
mitigation over time of water quality concerns due to pesticide use. Regional offices should also
provide technical assistance implementation of pesticide NPDES permits issued under the Clean
Water Act and, where routine opportunities present themselves, provide outreach on NPDES
permits to pesticide users potentially covered by the new requirements.
b) Proposed Principal Activities for Regional Offices Selecting this Priority Area
Page 33 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Regional offices emphasizing this area must conduct at least one Region-specific
project/initiative contributing to protection of water sources from pesticide risk.
Regional offices should support the Regional Water Programs in the implementation of
Pesticide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued
under the Clean Water Act in the following areas:
o Where routine opportunities present themselves, provide outreach to potential
permittees in states, territories, tribal areas, and federal facilities that will be covered
under the federal Pesticide General Permit (PGP);
o Where routine opportunities present themselves, provide outreach to potential
permittees in states with delegated NPDES authority; and
o To ensure effective education of the regulated community, steps should be taken to
coordinate outreach opportunities with Regional Water Program Staff, Regional
Pesticide Program staff, and state lead water and lead pesticide agency staffs.
4. Expansion and Enhancement of Pesticide Protections in Indian Country
a) Program Description
The primary goal of the National Pesticide Tribal Program is to help protect human health and
the environment by ensuring pesticides and alternatives are available in Indian country and can
be used according to label directions without causing unreasonable risks. This priority area
seeks to expand protections from pesticide risk by providing pesticide program coverage in
Indian Country and Alaska Native Villages, and to maximize our tribal resources by pursuing
policies and approaches that address the greatest human health and environmental risk concerns
from pesticide use in Indian Country. In addition, this priority area should benefit a number of
tribes rather than just a single tribe. Examples of this kind of "multi-tribal approach" are circuit
riders, multi-tribal training development of outreach that can benefit many tribes, and support of
tribal organizations dealing with pesticide issues in Indian Country and Alaskan Native Villages.
b) Proposed Principal Activities for Regional Offices Selecting this Priority Area
Regional offices emphasizing this area must conduct at least one Region-specific
project/initiative, which reduces pesticide risk in Indian Country and Alaska Native Villages.
Where appropriate, projects should seek to benefit multiple tribes. Projects can include working
with tribes to develop tribal Pesticide Use Assessments, if this would be valuable in identifying
the areas in Indian Country with the greatest need for tribal pesticide program grants and
cooperative agreements; or, exploring tribal interest in participating in circuit-rider programs
either by expanding existing single tribe programs or establishing new circuit-rider programs or
developing pesticide outreach materials useful to tribes. If there is interest in participating or
hosting a circuit-rider program, and if a circuit-rider program is appropriate for the situations
considered, Regional offices should take steps to establish these expanded or new circuit-rider
programs given available resources.
Page 34 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
5. Bed Bug Outreach/Assistance
a) Program Description
Over the last several years, bed bug complaints and infestations have increased markedly in
some areas of the country, and the spread of bed bugs infestations are predicted to increase.
People seeking effective, cheap, and rapid solutions have in some cases resorted to the use of
unregistered pesticide products or misuse of registered products. Economically-challenged
segments of the population may be more susceptible due to the relatively high cost of effective
treatment, the presence of multi-family housing, and limited access to information.
EPA's efforts to address bed bugs have focused on: 1) encouraging use of pesticides effective
against bed bugs that do not pose unreasonable risks to people or the environment; 2) promoting
the use of integrated pest management for bed bug control; 3) discouraging the use of
unregistered pesticides or the overuse of registered pesticides as measures to control bed bugs, 4)
providing information to the public on bed bug infestations and 5) collaborating with other
agencies and stakeholders to share information on bed bug control.
b) Principal Activities for Regional Offices Selecting this Priority Area
Regional offices emphasizing this area must conduct at least one Region-specific
project/initiative contributing to education about prevention of, or response to, bed bug
infestation, or providing technical assistance to states, tribes, pest management
professionals, local bed bug programs, environmental justice advocates, the general
public, or other stakeholders.
Assist OPP in the development and dissemination of information related to bed bugs and
their control.
In order to assure efficient use of resources, Regional offices should take steps to avoid
duplication of efforts in developing materials, trainings, and meetings by consulting with
the Bed Bug Clearinghouse on EPA's website (a URL will be provided in the final NPM
guidance) and by communicating with OPP and other Regional offices (such as through
OPP/Regional Bedbug Communications Workgroup). Where appropriate, Regional
offices should contribute relevant information to the Bed Bug Clearinghouse and should
encourage states and local agencies to consult and contribute to the clearinghouse as well.
Where feasible, Regional offices should also consider:
Establishing relationships with other federal, state, tribal and local agencies within the
Region to assist them where needed in their combined bed bug infestation
responses/activities.
Assisting states in detecting and stopping distribution of unregistered pesticides intended
for use against bed bugs.
Providing financial assistance to states for bed bug research, outreach, and education.
Page 35 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
6. Endangered Species
a) Program Description
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA strives to protect endangered/threatened plants
and animals (listed species) and the habitats upon which they depend. The ESA requires federal
agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out, will not "likely jeopardize"
the continued existence of any listed species, or "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitat of
a listed species. Through risk assessment and mitigation, OPP's goal under the Endangered
Species Protection Program (ESPP) is to limit potential effects from pesticide use to listed
species, while at the same time not placing undue burden on agriculture or other pesticide users.
Through risk assessment and, where necessary, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, EPA may identify measures necessary to ensure
no likely jeopardy to listed species. When such measures are geographically specific, the ESPP
is designed to relay such information through Endangered Species Protection Bulletins.
While it is EPA's goal to accomplish its work relative to listed species through ongoing risk
assessments to support the registration review process, the Agency also finds itself conducting
assessments and consultations outside that scope as a result of legal challenges brought against
the Agency. Much attention has been given to the Agency's effects determinations for
endangered species, and the consultation process required of EPA and the Services (National
Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Regional offices should focus on acting as liaison between OPP headquarters office and
states/tribes and pesticide users on potential impacts of pesticide use on threatened and
endangered species. Regional offices should also continue outreach and education on the ESPP
with the goal of increasing state, tribal, territory, and public knowledge of the program. Where
Bulletins are being developed, Regional offices play a critical role in facilitating input on
proposed limitations and placing additional emphasis on educating pesticide inspectors.
b) Proposed Principal Activities for Regional Offices Selecting this Priority Area
Regional offices emphasizing this area must conduct at least one Region-specific
project/initiative contributing to implementation of the Pesticide Program Endangered
Species Program and increased co-regulator and public knowledge about the ESPP.
Regional offices should also assist OPP in disseminating and obtaining review and
comment on ESPP-related information such as draft pesticide risk assessments, measures
recommended by the Services through Biological Opinions, and draft Bulletins, including
crop data, pesticide use data, and the feasibility of proposed mitigation measures.
7. Support of the Agricultural Sector
a) Program Description
Page 36 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
The goal of this priority is to help the agricultural sector understand, adjust to and implement
new pesticide requirements and national priorities designed to protect human health and the
environment from pesticides used in agriculture. According to the most recent EPA Pesticide
Market Estimates (2006-2007)2, over 684 million pounds of pesticides were used in the
Agricultural sector, representing 80% of total pesticide use in the United States. In addition,
many of EPA's risk mitigation actions related to pesticide use directly affect the Ag Sector, and
may require changes to established agricultural and pesticide use practices. Therefore, EPA
support of the Ag sector to help them recognize efforts they can take, either voluntarily or
through improved understanding of pesticide use requirements, can have a significant impact on
addressing harm to human health and the environment from pesticide use.
b) Proposed Principal Activities for Regional Offices Selecting this Priority Area
Regional offices emphasizing this area must conduct at least one region-specific project/initiative
which will help the agricultural sector understand, adjust to and implement new pesticide
requirements or to address the following national priorities designed to protect human health and
the environment from pesticides used in agriculture: pollinator protection, soil fumigation, spray
drift, resistance management, integrated pest management, or transition to safer pesticides and
practices. In addition, Regional offices may develop projects to support current or upcoming
registration review activities by collecting information on real world pesticide use or impacts of
risk mitigation approaches.
c) Proposed Regional ACS Measures
In order to help maintain national performance measures, each Regional office must report on
each of the ACS measures listed below, including the tribal ACS measures, regardless of
which region-specific priority area is selected.
:http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/pestsales/07pestsales/usage2007_2.htm#3_5
Page 3 7 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
ACS
Codes
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Comments
RSP2
Number of region-specific projects or
initiatives contributing to the
implementation and enhancement of the
region-specific priority areas.
Projects or
initiatives
Commitment target is 2
(one from each Region-
Specific Priority Area
selected).
Note: Regional offices
should specify the
Region-Specific Priority
Areas the projects
support in the comment
field in ACS.
TR-2
Number of tribes covered under tribal
pesticide program and/or enforcement
grants and cooperative agreements for
continuing environmental programs
established since FY 2005 in Indian
Country.
Tribes
Non-Commitment
Measure
TR-3
Number of people covered under tribal
pesticide program and/or enforcement
grants and cooperative agreements for
continuing environmental programs
established since FY 2005 in Indian
Country
People
Non-Commitment
Measure
TR-4
Number of acres covered under tribal
pesticide program and/or enforcement
grants and cooperative agreements for
continuing environmental programs
established since FY 2005 in Indian
Country
Acres
Non-Commitment
Measure
d) Definitions and Clarification of Measures
The tribal measures listed above (TR-2, TR-3 and TR-4) are intended to measure our
progress in expanding our ability to protect human health and the environment in Indian
Page 38 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Country using the multi-tribal approach described in the region-specific priority area,
"Expansion and Enhancement Of Pesticide Protections In Indian Country." These
measures track the national net increase in pesticide-program coverage based on the
number of tribes, number of people, and number of acres that are covered under tribal
pesticide program and/or enforcement grants and cooperative agreements for continuing
environmental programs established since FY 2005 in Indian Country (the year before the
Program began emphasizing the multi-tribal approach). We expect that increased
pesticide program presence in Indian Country will result in improvements to human
health and the environment in Indian Country.
OPP and the Regional offices will use data provided by the American Indian
Environmental Office (AIEO) to determine the number of people and acres within the
tribal areas covered by grants. The measures reported by each Regional office will be
rolled up nationally by OPP to determine the percentage increase for the measure since
FY 2005 (number of tribes, people and acres covered by continuing pesticide program
and/or enforcement grants established in Indian Country since 2005, divided by number
of tribes, people and acres covered under continuing pesticide program and/or
enforcement grants in Indian Country in FY 2005, multiplied by 100). Regional offices
will not be required to make specific commitments for these measures because levels of
attainment cannot be predicted in advance. This is because of overall funding
uncertainty, any new grants to fund circuit-riders will go to tribes with the greatest need
as determined from compared Pesticide Use Assessments and Regional offices will not
be able to know in advance if tribes within their region will be able to receive funding for
new multi-tribal programs.
Page 39 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
V. OPPT PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REGIONAL OFFICES PRIORITIES
OPPT ensures the safety of new chemicals entering and existing chemicals already being used in
U. S. commerce, reduces risks associated with legacy chemicals (e.g., lead, PCBs, asbestos)
remaining from prior practices, promotes the development and use of safer chemicals and
technologies, and promotes pollution prevention as the guiding principle for reducing pollution.
OPPT's long-term strategies and measures are found in Goal 4.1 and 4.2 of the FY 2011 -FY
2015 EPA Strategic Plan. As identified in the guidance that follows, EPA's regional offices
make vital contributions to several of those strategies: reducing risks from lead-based paint
nationally and in targeted vulnerable populations; reducing risks from other high-concern
chemicals; and, promoting pollution prevention as the strategy of first choice in reducing
environmental risks and pursuing sustainability. For more information about OPPT's programs,
go to http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/.
A. LEAD RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM
1. flagrant Description
Recent data show significant progress in the continuing effort to eliminate childhood lead
poisoning as a public health concern. EPA has historically measured progress by tracking
reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per
deciliter or higher. Data released in 2010 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) indicate that the incidence of childhood blood lead levels at or exceeding 10 micrograms
per deciliter has declined from approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of
children through 2006, the most recent time frame for which the CDC data are capable of
supporting a statistically reliable estimate due to the extremely low number of children with
blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher in subsequent sampling periods.
These results, together with other recent data, suggest that the federal government's goal of
eliminating the incidence childhood blood lead concentrations at that level by 2010 has
essentially been achieved.
2. Children's Health and Environmental Justice (EJ)
Results of recent studies, however, indicate adverse health effects to children at extremely low
blood levels, below 10 micrograms per deciliter. In response to this new information and the fact
that approximately 38 million homes in the U.S. have lead-based paint, EPA is now targeting
reductions in the number of children with blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per deciliter or
higher. The lead program also tracks the disparities in blood lead levels between low-income
children and non-low-income children. The program uses these performance measures to track
progress toward eliminating childhood lead poisoning in vulnerable populations.
EPA's Lead Risk Reduction program contributes to the goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning by:
Page 40 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Establishing standards governing lead hazard identification and abatement practices and
maintaining a national pool of professionals trained and certified to implement those
standards;
Providing information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions and
take actions about lead hazards in their homes; and,
Establishing and maintaining a national pool of certified firms and individuals who are
trained to carry out renovation and repair and painting projects while adhering to the
lead-safe work practice standards and to minimize lead dust hazards created in the course
of such projects.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/lead.
3. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices
The Lead Risk Reduction program FY 2013 Activities and Performance Plan proposed in EPA's
FY 2013 President's Budget can be found at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/. Regional
office activities proposed to be conducted in FY 2013 implementing that plan include:
Implement lead-based paint risk reduction education, outreach and regulatory
implementation programs in target areas with high concentrations of children with
elevated blood levels.
Continue overseeing the Section 404(g) grant program to maintain a trained workforce of
certified lead-based paint professionals and certified renovation firms in authorized states
and continue operating these programs in non-authorized states, ensuring that 100% of
grant funds are obligated within the first fiscal year of appropriation.
Provide outreach for Pre-Renovation Education Rule (406) and Disclosure Rule (1018).
Support the Training and Certification Rule 402(a), in EPA states and tribes; and
coordinate with state and tribal programs, as needed, for 402(a) rule compliance
assistance in authorized states.
Create opportunities for partnerships to address lead-based paint hazards and exposure
reduction. For example, utilize the Indian Health Service Environmental Health Office to
accommodate tribes in this area by performing lead-based testing in sensitive areas where
children are prone to 8-hour activity.
Implement the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule including:
providing Section 404(g) grants to states, tribes, and territories to develop and carry out
authorized programs; working with states, tribes, and territories to encourage successful
delegation of the rule; accrediting qualified training providers; providing information and
compliance assistance to firms and other regulated parties; providing effective public
outreach so that demand for qualified RRP contractors is strong; and, ensuring that 100%
of grant funds are obligated within the first fiscal year of appropriation.
Page 41 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Coordinate implementation of Lead Program activities with OECA's implementation of
compliance assistance, monitoring and enforcement strategies encompassing the full suite
of lead regulations, as articulated in OECA's TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy.
4. Proposed Regional Offices A CS Measures
ACS
Code
Measure
Unit of
Measure
Comments
13A
Annual percentage of viable lead-based paint
abatement certification applications that
require less than 20 days of EPA Regional
office effort to process (Direct
Implementation)
Percentage
Note: Directly
supports GPRA annual
performance measure
13B
Annual percentage of viable lead-based paint
abatement certification applications that
require less than grantee state-established
timeframes to process
Percentage
State Grant
Performance Measure
14
Number of abatement activities performed by
certified abatement workers occurring in the
region.
Abatements
Non-Commitment
Measure
RRP2
Number of active accredited lead-based paint
renovation, repair and painting certification
training providers in the region.
Training
Providers
Non-Commitment
Measure
TR-1
Number of tribal partnerships or projects
addressing lead-based paint hazards and
exposure reduction.
Partnerships
or Projects
Non-Commitment
Measure
5. Definitions and Clarification of Measures
ACS measure 13 A examines the efficiency of the Regional offices as they process viable
individual abatement certification applications. For ACS Measure 13 A, one or two
Regional offices may be performing all individual lead certifications in FY2013 on behalf
of the other Regional offices.
If the federal Lead-based Paint Program (FLPP) database is amended to accommodate the
change and the delegation of authority is revised prior to the start of FY2013 then,
Page 42 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Regional offices that are not processing abatement certifications should notify BAD to
attempt to make changes in ACS.
If ACS changes are not made, then Regional office(s) should report 100% and ensure that
the comment field has the following statement: In FY2013, Region N is processing the
certifications for the region.
If in FY2013 the changes in FLPP are not ready, then we will continue to use the
following procedures:
o EPA regional offices are measured on the number and percentage of individual
certification applications processed in less than 20 calendar days. This measure is
calculated by using two timeframes. Timeframe 1 is the number of days elapsed from
the "Sent to Regional office" date (when the contractor sends the application to the
Regional office) to the "Regional Office Review" date (when the Regional office
enters its recommendation to approve/disapprove.) Timeframe 2 is the number of
days from the "Approval or Disapproval Letter Generated" date entered by the
Regional office to the "Final Package Sent" date entered by the Regional office.
o Timeframes 1 and 2 are added together to give the total processing time. These two
timeframes do not include time from any other FLPP process and specifically exclude
any time associated with fee confirmation. All of the dates discussed are only valid if
recorded in FLPP, and the date recorded in FLPP is the date that these activities are
checked off in the database. For example, if a final package is mailed to an applicant
on September 1, and then two weeks later (on September 15) the Regional office staff
enters FLPP to update the database, and clicks the "Final Package Sent" button for
that application, the September 15 date is entered into FLPP as the date the final
package is was sent (rather than the actual September 1 date). This cannot be
overridden, so be sure to enter your progress on the day that you accomplish each
action.
o ACS measure 13B is a State Grant Performance Measure, which examines the
efficiency of authorized Grantee-States as they process viable abatement certification
applications within the Grantee-State established timeframes. Regional offices
should ensure that their respective states achieve the minimum planning target, stated
as the Regional office bid. The Regional offices will use the comment field to report
their authorized Grantee-State timeframes (number of days taken by Grantee-State to
process a viable application) for each shareholder (state or tribe) and the percentage
of applications processed under the Grantee-State established timeframe. The
timeframe may vary by state, taking variables such as regulations and contractor
processing time into account. The number agreed upon should be a reasonable
determination that reflects the length of time that it takes the Grantee-State to process
an application, as identified by the Grantee-State and represented to the public.
o Below is an example of the information that should be reported by the Regional
offices in the comment field.
Page 43 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Shareholder
AL
GA
KY
MS
NC
TN
Timeframe (calendar days)
25
20
20
10
20
60
% Processed within timeframe
72.5
75
72
75
72
100
ACS measure 14 is a non-commitment measure, which looks to measure the number of
abatements that occur within each state. The measure will provide valuable information
on the true impact of the abatement contractors certified by EPA and the authorized
programs. For ACS Measure 14, the phrase "abatement activities" is a broad universe
and may include lead hazard screens and risk assessments. However, for ACS measure
14, the Regional offices should only count the number project notifications received in
the fiscal year in order to accurately assess the number of abatement projects being done
in the Regional offices.
ACS measure RRP2 is a non-commitment measure, which captures the number of
training providers for lead-based paint Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) with
active accreditations processed by each Regional office. Regional offices should count
the number of current accredited trainers whose accreditations were processed by that
Regional office as of the last working day in August 2013. This measure does not count
the number of accredited training courses. The measure will provide valuable
information on the program's ability to ensure an adequate workforce of trained and
certified RRP professionals to meet the demands of homeowners and others seeking such
workers to perform RRP activities.
ACS measure TR-1 is a non-commitment measure, which tracks the number of tribal
partnerships or other projects addressing lead-based paint hazards and exposure reduction
on tribal lands. Tribal partnerships are a more focused subset of overall lead
partnerships. Examples of tribal partnerships or projects include: Direct Implementation
Tribal Cooperative Agreements (DITCAs), on-going projects, outreach, DITCA related
activities, cooperative agreements, formal agreements, tribal grants, Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs), etc.
Page 44 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
B. CHEMICAL RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1. Program Description
The Chemical Risk Management (CRM) program supports national efforts aimed at mitigating
chemical risk and exposure through reductions in use and safe removal, disposal, and
containment of certain prevalent, high-risk chemicals - known generally as legacy chemicals.
Some of these chemicals were used widely in commerce and introduced into the environment
before their risks were known. In FY 2013, the CRM Program will focus on ensuring proper use
of poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), limiting exposures to PCBs in schools and other buildings,
and encouraging the use of non-mercury products both domestically and through international
mercury use reduction partnerships.
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices
The Chemical Risk Management program FY 2013 Activities and Performance Plan proposed in
EPA's FY 2013 President's Budget can be found at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/.
Regional office activities proposed to be conducted in FY 2013 implementing that plan include:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Provide assistance in assessing presence of PCBs in caulk, fluorescent light ballasts, and
other sources in schools and other buildings. Provide information about proper
replacement and disposal of PCB-containing materials and opportunities for technical and
funding assistance through Environmental Services Companies (ESCOs) and other
mechanisms.
Promote education and outreach efforts on PCBs in schools and other buildings, drawing
on materials recently developed. Target populations may include: Local Educational
Authorities (LEAs), School Districts/Boards, individual schools (including charter
schools), principals, PTAs (including individual parents and teachers), maintenance
workers, and individual students. Distribution mechanisms may include: web products,
written publications (fact sheets, booklets, reports), public meetings, conferences,
exhibits, community outreach, training sessions, award programs, mass mailings
(electronic or postal), and phone calls.
Asbestos
The FY2013 President's Budget proposes elimination of the OCSPP fibers program
activities, including updates to existing guidance, development of new guidance on
emerging fibers hazards, and assistance to the public and regulated community -
including schools and school systems - regarding asbestos regulations or health and
safety concerns. There will be no capacity to implement AHERA in the Regions. A
clear message to enable Agency personnel to appropriately address inquiries from the
public and regulated community either directly or through referral to other Agency
programs will be developed. Requests for information should be directed to EPA's
Page 45 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Asbestos website (http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/) or the TSCA Hotline (telephone: 202-
554-1414; and email address: tsca-hotline@epa.gov). Congressional inquiries or Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests will continue to be addressed through existing
Agency processes.
Preparations in FY 2012 to implement this FY 2013 reduction include:
o Identifying key questions/inquiries the Agency receives from the public and
regulated community;
o Identifying key information which needs to be updated and/or made more user
friendly to address likely questions and inquiries from the public and regulated
community;
o Developing new information as appropriate, e.g., FAQs, to answer questions not
currently addressed;
o Developing a protocol for handling incoming inquiries to EPA;
o Completing development of Asbestos Resource Directory;
o Developing a protocol for TSCA Hotline responses to inquiries;
o Uploading all appropriate information to Asbestos Resource Directory; and,
o Briefing TSCA Hotline staff on protocol for responding to inquiries.
Other continuing Agency programs, such as OSWER's emergency response, will enable
the Agency to respond to major contamination events.
OECA will have a limited national presence for asbestos enforcement and focus on the
most egregious violations of Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) in F Y
2013.
3. Proposed Regional Offices A CS Measures
ACS
Code
TSCA1
Measure
Number of activities conducted to reduce or
prevent exposure to chemicals of concern,
with a focus on PCBs .
Unit of
Measure
Activities
Comments
Non-Commitment
Measure
4. Definitions and Clarification of Measures
Page 46 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
ACS measure TSCA1 replaces the two FY 2012 asbestos measures, reflecting EPA's proposal to
eliminate fibers program activities in the FY 2013 President's Budget. ACS measure TSCA1 is
a non-commitment measure in its first year that will establish a baseline to support development
of future commitments. The measure seeks to capture the number of activities undertaken by the
Regional offices to reduce or prevent exposure to chemicals with well-established risks that EPA
is working actively to reduce, with a focus on PCBs. Activities may include, but are not limited
to, workshops, presentations, community outreach and development of tools. Regional offices
will be asked to describe, in the ACS Comment Field, the activities anticipated to contribute to
this measure.
C. CHEMICAL RISK REVIEW AND REDUCTION PROGRAM
1. flagrant Description
Chemicals are employed by U.S. industries to produce widely used items, including consumer
products such as cleansers, paints, plastics and fuels as well as industrial solvents and additives,
in some cases leading to significant public and environmental exposure. While these chemicals
play an important role in people's everyday lives, some may adversely affect human health and
the environment, requiring EPA to take risk management actions to address unreasonable human
health and environmental risks. There are more than 83,000 chemicals identified in EPA's Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory, of which approximately 3,700 are High Production
Volume (HPV) chemicals that are produced at over 1,000,000 Ibs per year, and of which an
additional 3,300 chemicals produced at over 25,000 Ibs per year.
Under TSCA, the EPA has significant responsibilities for ensuring that commercial chemicals do
not present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The Chemical Risk Review
and Reduction (CRRR) program focuses on assessing and managing the potential risks of tens of
thousands of existing chemicals that entered commerce before TSCA took effect and on
managing the potential risks of new chemicals before their entry into commerce. Key program
efforts include ensuring the safety of:
Existing chemicals, by obtaining needed data, assessing those data and taking regulatory
and non-regulatory actions to eliminate or significantly reduce any unreasonable risk they
may pose; and,
New chemicals, by reviewing and acting on new chemical notices submitted by industry,
including Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs), to ensure that no unreasonable risk is posed
when those chemicals are introduced into U.S. commerce.
In September 2009, Administrator Jackson announced a fundamental transformation of EPA's
approach for ensuring chemical safety to make significant and long overdue progress in
protecting human health and the environment, particularly from existing chemicals that have not
been tested for adverse health or environmental effects. This new approach, which is reflected in
the FY 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan and was developed and implemented throughout FY
2010 and FY 2011, has as its focal points:
Page 47 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Obtaining, Managing, and Making Public Chemical Information: Continue developing a
sustainable chemical safety information pipeline to support future assessments and risk
management actions.
Screening and Assessing Chemical Risks: Continue assessing the risks of existing
chemicals to inform and support development and implementation of risk management
actions, as appropriate.
Reducing Chemical Risks: Advance consideration and implementation of risk
management actions initiated in FY 2011 and continued through FY 2012 and consider
initiating new risk management actions in FY 2013.
In March 2012, EPA completed a Work Plan identifying 83 chemicals for further assessment
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/workplan.html. EPA selected seven of those
chemicals for risk assessment during FY 2012. In FY 2013, EPA will complete the assessments
commenced in FY 2012 and initiate additional assessments for chemicals identified as candidates
through the work planning process described in the CRRR program section of the FY 2013
President's Budget.
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices
No Regional offices activities are proposed for FY 2013 under the CRRR Program due to the
absence of direct resources allocated to Regional offices under this Program/Project. The
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program FY 2013 Activities and Performance Plan
proposed in EPA's FY 2013 President's Budget can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/.
D. POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
1. Program Description
The Pollution Prevention (P2) program is one of EPA's primary tools for encouraging
environmental stewardship by federal and state and tribal governments, industry, communities,
and individuals. The P2 program is designed to eliminate or reduce waste at the point of
generation by: encouraging cleaner production processes and technologies; promoting the
development and use of safer, "greener" materials and products; and, supporting the
implementation of improved practices, such as the use of conservation techniques and the reuse
of materials in lieu of their placement into the waste stream. The P2 program has already begun
to consider and address the implications of climate change in its goals, objectives, and strategies,
including adding a green house gas reduction measure to its GPRA performance measures
portfolio, and uses the Economy, Energy and Environment (E3) framework to promote
sustainable manufacturing by helping companies lean and green their factories and implement
cost-cutting measures. As a result of the P2 program, EPA and its partners have achieved
significant: reductions in the use of hazardous materials, energy and water; reductions in the
generation of greenhouse gases; savings in production, operation and waste management costs;
Page 48 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
and, increases in the use of safer chemicals and products. In contributing to the Agency's
mission to reduce chemical risks, the program is focusing its attention on chemicals being
identified as candidates for risk management action under TSCA. Additionally, the program is
working to enhance pollution prevention education and outreach resources and disseminate
information to the public. The P2 program is augmented by a counterpart P2 grant program in
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account.
For more information about EPA's Pollution Prevention Program, see http://www.epa.gov/p2/.
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices
Administer the P2 State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program to fund state and
tribal P2 technical assistance programs and regional P2Rx Centers that contribute
significantly to achieving EPA's P2 performance targets, ensuring that 100% of STAG
funds are obligated within the first year of appropriation. Identify, and work with the
states and tribes to replicate, successful pilots for maximum national impact.
Administer the Source Reduction Assistance (SRA) grant program to fund states, tribes,
local governments and other institutions that contribute significantly to achieving EPA's
P2 performance targets. Identify, and work with the states and tribes and others to
replicate, successful pilots for maximum national impact.
Promote multi-media coordination with (air, water, waste, and toxics programs) within
each Regional Office to promote P2/sustainability outcomes.
Provide direct P2 technical assistance to businesses, governments and organizations to
advance P2 program goals and strategies. Connect small and medium enterprises
engaged in manufacturing with technical assistance through the Economy, Energy and
Environment (E3) framework to promote sustainable manufacturing by helping
companies lean and green their factories and implement cost-cutting measures.
Continue to engage in development and use of a tool to improve the collection, tracking
and reporting of P2 and SRA grant results.
Page 49 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
3. Proposed Regional Offices A CS Measures
ACS
Code
262
263
264
297
Measure
Gallons of water reduced through pollution
prevention.
Business, institutional and government costs
reduced through pollution prevention.
Pounds of hazardous material reduced through
pollution prevention.
Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e) reduced or offset through pollution
prevention.
Unit of
Measure
Gallons
Dollars
Pounds
MTCO2e
Comments
Note: Directly
supports GPRA
annual performance
measure
Note: Directly
supports GPRA
annual performance
measure
Note: Directly
supports GPRA
annual performance
measure
Note: Directly
supports GPRA
annual performance
measure
4. Definitions and Clarification of Measures
For all Pollution Prevention measures, "reduced" is defined to mean reduction through P2
improvements and includes pollution avoided. An example of "avoiding" pollution
would be substituting a less hazardous chemical instead of a more hazardous chemical.
The pollution "reduced" and "avoided" must be related to source reduction, and not out-
of-process recycling. The P2 Program considers the reuse of materials as source
reduction, not out-of-process recycling, because reuse occurs before material is
discarded. Out-of-process recycling involves waste haulers picking up material after it
has been discarded.
When considering material reuse from a grant or program measurement perspective, it is
helpful to remember that the P2 Program places a priority on preventing hazardous
pollution over non-hazardous pollution. The reuse of hazardous materials would allow
counting any associated life-cycle benefits towards annual targets for reductions in
(virgin) hazardous materials, energy use/GHG emissions, water use, and costs. The reuse
Page 50 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
of nonhazardous materials, on the other hand, could not serve as a primary purpose of a
P2 grant, nor would it allow reporting benefits towards annual targets for reductions in
hazardous materials or dollar costs. If the reuse of nonhazardous materials is ancillary to
primary P2 activities under a grant, however, Regional offices should report the
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions associated with reusing those nonhazardous materials.
These GHG reductions would otherwise go unreported and the GHG reduction measure
is defined broadly and without hazardous material limitations. For that matter, GHG
reductions from ancillary out-of-process recycling activities undertaken in conjunction
with P2 implementation activities should also be counted, for the same reason.
For the greenhouse gas measure, "reduced" and "offset" collectively cover activities that
result in less combustion of fossil fuels. This can occur by using fossil fuel energy more
efficiently, simply using less fossil fuel energy, or switching to an energy source with a
lower fossil fuel impact. For further details and examples, consult the 2012 P2
Measurement Guidance.
ACS measure 262 is a commitment measure that counts the gallons of water reduced as a
result of water conservation. What is counted is the reduced use of water in the first
place. This can be accomplished through conservation and re-use of water. For further
details and examples, consult the 2012 P2 Measurement Guidance.
ACS measure 263 is a commitment measure that counts the amount of money saved as a
result of the incorporation of pollution prevention practices into the daily operations of
government agencies, businesses, and institutions. Institution is defined as an established
organization, especially of a public character (e.g., hospitals, universities, group
purchasing organization, etc). The P2 Program, in consultation with the Pollution
Prevention Resource Center (PPRC), has updated the financial cost calculator which
provides specific cost savings for specific types, of pollutants as well as water and energy
conservation. Further details and examples can be found in the 2012 P2 Measurement
Guidance.
ACS measure 264 is a commitment measure that counts the reduction of hazardous
material released to air, water, land, or incorporated into products, or used in an industrial
process. Hazardous is used in a broad sense to include federally or state regulated
pollutants, including Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and Clean Water Act water quality
criteria pollutants and conventional pollutants, but excludes items generally considered of
low hazard and frequency recyclable or divertible, such as paper products, cans, iron and
steel scrap, and construction waste.
ACS measure 297 is a commitment measure that counts the metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MTCO2e) reduced or offset.
The P2 Program has developed a Greenhouse Gas Reductions Calculator to calculate
greenhouse gas reductions from P2 activities, a Cost Calculator to calculate financial
benefits from P2 activities, and a webinar for help in using the calculators. These tools
are being made available for Regional office use to compute the conversion of electricity,
Page 51 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
fuels, BTUs, and chemicals to MTCO2e for reporting purposes. The calculators and
webinar can be found at:
o http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/resources/measurement.html
o http://www.p2.org/category/general-resources/p2-data-calculators/
o http://pprc.org/webinars/2011 webinars. cfm
E. COMMUNITY ACTION FOR A RENEWED ENVIRONMENT (CARE)
1. flagrant Description
Through the CARE program, EPA provides funding tools and technical support that enable
underserved communities to create collaborative partnerships to take effective actions to address
local environmental problems. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) issued
a positive evaluation of the CARE program in May 2009 observing ".. .the CARE program
complements EPA regulatory strategies with place-based strategiesstrategies that consider the
local context in which environmental decisions are made and effects are felt. The Panel believes
that the CARE approach represents a "next step" in environmental improvement and protection."
Since 2005, CARE grants have reached 87 communities, allowing for the CARE process to
occur in 40 states and territories with over 1,700 partners engaged for a total of $16 million in
grants. Through 2009, combined, CARE communities have: leveraged dollar for dollar the
CARE funding, although it is not required; visited over 4,000 homes providing information
and/or environmental testing; worked to reduce risks in almost 300 schools and provided
environmental information to over 2,800 businesses and 50,00 individuals.
CARE delivers funding through cooperative agreements. In the smaller Level I agreements, the
community, working with EPA, creates a collaborative problem-solving group of community
stakeholders. That group assesses the community's toxic exposure, environmental problems and
priorities, and begins to identify potential solutions. In the larger Level II agreements, the
community, working with EPA, selects and funds projects that reduce risk and improve the
environment in the community.
CARE is a cross-Agency program that depends on strong collaboration between all the National
Program Managers and between Headquarters and Regional Offices. The CARE Executive
Team (comprised of senior management from Headquarters and Regional Offices) guides the
program. Eleven cross-Agency Headquarters/Regional Offices teams manage the program. The
Regional Offices coordinate across their offices to meet the needs of specific communities. This
collaboration is essential in ensuring that communities have access to all of EPA voluntary
programs and other resources and tools from across the Agency. CARE also coordinates with
federal agencies such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC)/Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and other Agencies to better meet communities' needs.
2. Proposed Principal Activities for the Regional Offices
Page 52 of 53
-------
Final FY 2013 OCSPP NPM GUIDANCE
Provide multi-media regional support needed to ensure the success of the region's CARE
cooperative agreements.
Identify experienced project officers/leaders for each of the CARE projects and provide
training and support as needed.
Strengthen cross program regional team organized to support CARE project leaders and
CARE community needs with dedicated technical and programmatic support.
During CARE Level I projects, project officers help provide the technical support needed
for communities to identify and rank their risks and build long-term, viable partnerships..
During CARE Level II projects, project officers help communities' access EPA programs
and expertise to create and implement local solutions and measure and track their results.
Encourage staff participation in training new project leaders and at sessions during the
national CARE workshop.
Ensure required reporting of progress and results through the Quarterly and End of Year
Reports and assist in other efforts to aggregate program results on a national level.
Support work to capture best practices and lessons learned to help other communities
replicate these approaches.
Support CARE national teams that have been organized to manage the CARE program
and provide support to Regional Office teams and projects.
3. Proposed Regional Offices A CS Measures
ACS
Code
CARE1
Regional Offices Measure
Number of Community Action for Renewed
Environment (CARE) cooperative
agreement projects managed in order to
obtain toxic reductions at the local level.
Unit of
Measure
Cooperative
Agreement
Comments
Non-Commitment
Measure
4. Definitions and Clarification of Measures
ACS measure CARE1 seeks to track the number of CARE projects managed by the Regional
Office. The CARE measure was developed as an inherently duplicative measure and other
NPMs will have similar CARE measures. The Regional Offices will use the ACS comment field
to report the CARE cooperative agreement projects and will report the same information if
another NPM has a similar CARE measure. In FY 2013, OCSPP does not have the lead for
CARE program; and such the ACS CARE1 measure is a non-commitment measure.
Page 53 of 53
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Final FY 2013 NPM Guidance Attachment A
NPM Guidance Measures
G/O/S*
4/1
4/1
4/1
ACS
Code
IPM2
CORE2
RSP2
Measure Text
Number of activities conducted consistent with
the National School IPM Plan to provide
outreach, education, and/or assistance to
public school officials at the elementary
through high school levels to adopt verifiable
and sustainable IPM practices.1
Percent of overall pesticide program "core"
cooperative agreement activities that are
included in grantee workplans and completed
consistent with the pesticide program portion
of the FIFRA Grant Guidance.
Number of Region-specific projects or
initiatives contributing to the implementation
and enhancement of the Regional specific
priority areas.
Non-
Commitment
Indicator
(Y/N)
Y
N
N
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
N
Planning
Target
100%3
2 per
Region
National
Target
(FY 2013
Pres. Bud)
1 Activities are defined as substantial increments of work with one or more internal or external stakeholder(s) or development of program capacity such as
databases or educational resources to advance IPM in schools. In order to keep a wide range of activities somewhat comparable, each reported activity should
generally include 1) preparation, 2) substantive participation, and 3) follow-up actions as needed.
2 Since end-of-year reports for these cooperative agreements are not due to OPP from the regions until February 28, data for this ACS measure will not be
available at the end of the fiscal year for reporting into ACS. When regions report their ACS measures at the end of the fiscal year, they may indicate in the
comment field for this measure that this data will not be available until February/March and will be reported at that time.
Percent of pesticide program core activities completed by grantee as compared to the total required by pesticide program portion of the FIFRA grant guidance.
Where core activities are not completed, they can be removed from the total required provided a reasonable rationale for not completing the core activity is
documented (e.g., unexpected loss of staff or unplanned crises during the project period).
-------
G/O/S*
4/1
4/1
4/1
4/1
4/1
4/1
ACS
Code
TR-2
TR-3
TR-4
13A
13B
14
Measure Text
Number of tribes covered under tribal
pesticide program and/or enforcement grants
and cooperative agreements for continuing
environmental programs established since FY
2005 in Indian Country.
Number of people covered under tribal
pesticide program and/or enforcement grants
and cooperative agreements for continuing
environmental programs established since FY
2005 in Indian Country.
Number of acres covered under tribal pesticide
program and/or enforcement grants and
cooperative agreements for continuing
environmental programs established since FY
2005 in Indian Country.
Annual percentage of viable lead-based paint
abatement certification applications that
require less than 20 days of EPA Regional
Office effort to process ( Direct
Implementation) .
Annual percentage of viable lead-based paint
abatement certification applications that
require less than grantee State-established
timeframes to process.
Number of abatement activities performed by
certified abatement workers occurring in the
Region.
Non-
Commitment
Indicator
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Planning
Target
National
Target
(FY 2013
Pres. Bud)
95
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's Final FY2013 NPM Guidance Attachment A
Page 2
-------
G/O/S*
4/1
4/1
4/1
4/2
4/2
4/2
4/2
3/4
ACS
Code
RRP2
TR-1
TSCA1
262
263
264
297
CARE1
Measure Text
Number of active accreditations for lead-based
paint renovation, repair and painting
certification training providers in the Regional
Office.
Number of tribal partnerships or projects
addressing lead-based paint hazards and
exposure reduction.
Number of activities conducted to reduce or
prevent exposure to chemicals of concern, with
a focus on PCBs.
Gallons of water reduced through pollution
prevention.
Business, institutional and government costs
reduced through pollution prevention.
Pounds of hazardous material reduced through
pollution prevention.
Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e) reduced or offset through pollution
prevention.
Number of Community Action for Renewed
Environment (CARE) cooperative agreement
projects managed in order to obtain toxic
reductions at the local level.
Non-
Commitment
Indicator
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
State
Performance
Measure
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Planning
Target
National
Target
(FY 2013
Pres. Bud)
24.8 B
738 M
1030 M
4.2 M
*StrategicPlan Goal/Objective
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's Final FY2013 NPM Guidance Attachment A
Page 3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
Final FY 2013 NPM Guidance Attachment B
Explanation of Changes between FY 2012 and FY 2013 Template
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected Pages and Sections
Priorities
Deletion. The Container/Containment and
the Antimicrobial Testing Program (ATP)
priorities have both been deleted as priorities
from the FY 2013 OCSPP NPM Guidance.
The expectation is that these programs will
be addressed under the FY 2013 OECA
NPM Guidance. This is because most of
the regional work needed to address these
program areas in FY2013 are related to
inspections and enforcement. While we are
deleting these programs from the OCSPP
NPM Guidance, regions will still be
expected to continue basic program related
activities for these areas (education,
outreach, training and technical support);
however, the level of program-related effort
in the regions associated with these
programs will be more routine rather than
rising to the level of "priority" work.
Deletion: In the Protection of Water
Resources from Pesticide Exposure priority,
we have deleted the expectations that
regional pesticide staff will provide support
to the regional Water Program staff to review
and develop NPDES pesticide permits.
Those permits should already be in place,
so that support will not be necessary in FY
2013.
The Protection of Water
Resources from Pesticide
Exposure priority begins on
page 32.
Addition: A new pesticide priority for
Support of the Agricultural Sector to the OPP
Region-Specific Priorities section from
which Regions must choose two priorities to
support.
The goal of this priority will be to help the
agricultural sector understand, adjust to, and
implement new pesticide requirements and
specific national priorities designed to
protect human health and the environment
from pesticides used in agriculture. The
types and focus of regional projects to
The pesticide priority for
Support of the Agricultural
Sector begins on page 36.
-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected Pages and Sections
support this priority will support specific
national pesticide program priorities
(pollinator protection, soil fumigation,
spray drift, resistance management, and
transition to safer pesticides and practices).
In addition, regions may develop projects to
support current or upcoming registration
review activities by collecting information
on real world pesticide use or impacts of
risk mitigation approaches.
Modification: Elimination of the fibers
program activities and a reduction to PCBs
program activities in the Chemical Risk
Management programIncluding a
reduction of dollars and FTEs in Regional
Offices resources.
FY2013 President's Budget proposes a
$2,442.0/12.5 FTE reduction in the
Chemical Risk Management program,
including a reduction of $1,407 and 8.1
FTEs in Regional Offices resources. This
decrease reflects elimination of the fibers
program activities and a reduction to PCBs
program activities.
The Chemical Risk
Management Program begins
on page 45.
Modification. Collaboration on
environmental stewardship and chemicals
identified for assessment and risk
management action in the Pollution
Prevention program.
In FY 2013, the Pollution Prevention (P2)
Program will focus attention on chemicals
being identified as candidates for
assessment and risk management action
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). The P2 program will collaborate
with other EPA environmental stewardship
programs.
The Pollution Prevention
Program begins on page 47.
Strategies
None.
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's Final FY 2013 NPM Guidance Attachment B
Page 2
-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected Pages and Sections
Annual
Commitment
Measures
Deletion. "IPM1" measure.
Replaced by new "IPM2" measure.
We were not able to obtain the data to
support the previous ACS measure for
School IPM, IPM1 (number of children in
public school covered by verifiable and on-
going IPM program). Therefore, we have
moved to an activity based measure
("IPM2"). Progress on this measure should
result in increased adoption of IPM
practices in public schools, grades K-12.
The School IPM section begins
on page 24.
Addition: "IPM2" measure. This new
measure is a non-commitment measure for
FY 2013. Measures the number of activities
conducted consistent with the National
School IPM Plan to provide outreach,
education, and/or assistance to public school
officials at the elementary through high
school levels to adopt verifiable and
sustainable IPM practices.
We were not able to obtain the data to
support the previous ACS measure for
School IPM, IPM1 (number of children in
public school covered by verifiable and on-
going IPM program). Therefore, we have
moved to an activity based measure
("IPM2"). Progress on this measure should
result in increased adoption of IPM
practices in public schools, grades K-12.
The School IPM section begins
on page 24.
Deletion: state grant performance measure
"26".
State Grant Performance Measures are no
longer required. Furthermore, this data is
already collected through the state and
tribal agreement process and captured in the
Certification Plan and Reporting Database
(CPARD), making this measure redundant.
Deletion: Asbestos measures "ISA" and
"15B". Replaced by new "TSCA1" measure.
Asbestos measures were deleted in favor of
the new "TSCA1" measure. New measure
captures chemicals of concern more
accurately and reflects the work done by the
Chemical Risk Management program,
The Chemical Risk
Management Program begins
on page 45.
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's Final FY 2013 NPM Guidance Attachment B
Page 3
-------
Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document
Reason for Change
Affected Pages and Sections
which includes asbestos.
Addition: "TSCA1" measure. This new
measure is a non-commitment measure for
FY2013.
New measure captures chemicals of
concern more accurately and reflects the
work done by the Chemical Risk
Management program, which includes
asbestos.
The Chemical Risk
Management Program begins
on page 45.
Modification: Measure text for "297"
Deleted the word "annual" from the
beginning of the measure so now it contains
identical language as President's budget.
The Pollution Prevention
Program begins on page 47.
Modification: Measure CARE1. This
measure is a non-commitment measure for
FY2013.
OCSPP does not have the lead for the
Agency for the CARE program.
The Community Action For a
Renewed Environment (CARE)
section begins on page 51.
Tracking
Process
Modification: If the federal Lead-based Paint
Program (FLPP) database is amended to
accommodate the change and the delegation
of authority is revised prior to the start of
FY2013.
If the FLPP database revisions and updates
are completed by the start of FY2013, then
only one or two regions will be processing
abatement certifications.
The Lead Risk Reduction
Program begins on page 40.
Contacts
None
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's Final FY 2013 NPM Guidance Attachment B
Page 4
------- |